Patent Ownership Rights: Structuring Assignment and Employment Contracts

Transcription

1 Presenting a live 90-minute webinar with interactive Q&A Patent Ownership Rights: Structuring Assignment and Employment Contracts Key Provisions, Implications for Litigation, Recent Court Treatment THURSDAY, MAY 3, pm Eastern 12pm Central 11am Mountain 10am Pacific Today s faculty features: Eman Ahmed-Fakhry, Senior Counsel, Hospital Therapies Department, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, New York Anne Elise Herold Li, Counsel, Crowell & Moring, New York Robert Schaffer, Partner, Troutman Sanders, New York The audio portion of the conference may be accessed via the telephone or by using your computer's speakers. Please refer to the instructions ed to registrants for additional information. If you have any questions, please contact Customer Service at ext. 1.

2 Tips for Optimal Quality FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY Sound Quality If you are listening via your computer speakers, please note that the quality of your sound will vary depending on the speed and quality of your internet connection. If the sound quality is not satisfactory, you may listen via the phone: dial and enter your PIN when prompted. Otherwise, please send us a chat or sound@straffordpub.com immediately so we can address the problem. If you dialed in and have any difficulties during the call, press *0 for assistance. Viewing Quality To maximize your screen, press the F11 key on your keyboard. To exit full screen, press the F11 key again.

3 Continuing Education Credits FOR LIVE EVENT ONLY In order for us to process your continuing education credit, you must confirm your participation in this webinar by completing and submitting the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation after the webinar. A link to the Attendance Affirmation/Evaluation will be in the thank you that you will receive immediately following the program. For additional information about continuing education, call us at ext. 2.

4 Advanced Video Technologies LLC v. HTC Corporation Time to Check Your Agreement Provisions Anne Elise Herold Li, Crowell & Moring Eman Ahmed-Fakhry, Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Crowell & Moring 4

5 The views and opinions expressed by Eman Ahmed-Fakhry do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any agency of Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Crowell & Moring 5

6 Employment agreements and IP Most employment agreements have IP assignment rights Companies rely on these to capture intellectual property of all types patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, knowhow. But in-artful drafting can create pitfalls Crowell & Moring 6

7 Background Patent Infringement lawsuit Issue under discussion: Does Advanced Video have standing? The `798 patent lists three co-inventors The invention was created while the co-inventors were all employed with a predecessor in interest to Advanced Video. Crowell & Moring 7

8 Background Under review, the employment agreement involves 3 important provisions: Assignment provision Trust provision Quit-claim provision Did these provisions effectuate an assignment of intellectual property that is sufficient to convey those rights to the employer? Crowell & Moring 8

9 Background Two of the three co-inventors signed formal assignments which transferred their ownership interests during patent prosecution. The third did not, so the company relied on the employment agreement and used regular patent office procedures to continue. No challenge by her at this time No mention of this issue in numerous transfers of the rights Crowell & Moring 9

10 Assignment and Trust Provision Provision under review: I agree that I will promptly make full written disclosure to the Company, will hold in trust for the sole right and benefit of the Company, and will assign to the Company all my right, title, and interest in and to any and all inventions, original works of authorship, developments, improvements or trade secrets which I may solely or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of time I am in the employ of the Company. Crowell & Moring 10

11 Court s Disposition Not an Assignment Assignment Provision: The Court stated that [t]he will assign language alone does not create an immediate assignment of [the inventor s] rights in the invention to [the company]. The will assign provision was only a promise to do something in the future, but did not mean that the employee had already effectuated an assignment. Crowell & Moring 11

12 Court s Disposition No Trust Created Trust Provision According to the Court, even if the interests were placed into a trust, it does not follow that that these interests were automatically, or ever, actually transferred out of trust in favor of [the company]. Crowell & Moring 12

13 Quitclaim Provision Provision under review: I hereby waive and quitclaim to the Company any and all claims, of any nature whatsoever, which I now or may hereafter have infringement [sic] of any patents, copyrights, or mask work rights resulting from any such application assigned hereunder to the Company. Crowell & Moring 13

14 Quitclaim Nothing to disclaim The Court stated that the language in the quitclaim provision waives [the inventor s] rights to interests in any patent rights that she assigned under the agreement. Since no patent rights were ever assigned to Advanced Video, the quitclaim provision has no application. Crowell & Moring 14

15 Privileged Material Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege & Attorney Work Product Recommendations I hereby assign to the Company all my right, title, and interest in and to any and all inventions, original works of authorship, developments, improvements or trade secrets which I may solely or jointly conceive or develop or reduce to practice, or cause to be conceived or developed or reduced to practice, during the period of time I am in the employ of the Company any derivative works. Crowell & Moring 15

16 Privileged Material Protected by Attorney-Client Privilege & Attorney Work Product Recommendations If the Company is unable to secure your signature on any document for the purpose of securing intellectual property rights from a government authority, either here or abroad, following its reasonable efforts to do so, then you hereby irrevocably designate and appoint the Company and its duly authorized officers and agents as your agent and attorney in fact, to act for and on your behalf and stead to execute any documents and to do all other lawfully permitted acts in connection with the foregoing. Crowell & Moring 16

17 Key Takeaways: for arriving employees Instruct new hires not to use documents or information from previous employer. Conduct new hire training on the importance of protecting your company s assets. Be sure to cover obvious topics, such as following computer access policies and your company s data encryption system, and less obvious topics, such as the possibility of accidental trade secret disclosure from holding business discussions in public places. Separate out trade secret agreements and training from the piles of paperwork and training that new employees receive so that they are not glossed over or disregarded as just another piece of paper to sign. Crowell & Moring 17

18 Key Takeaways: for arriving employees If the new employee s position at your company is going to be substantially similar to his or her previous position, consider initially assigning the employee to different projects. Also consider temporarily modifying the new employee s job responsibilities. Periodically review the new employee s work to confirm that he or she is not utilizing confidential and proprietary information belonging to previous employers. Require confidentiality and non-disclosure commitments from employees. Crowell & Moring 18

19 Key Takeaways: for departing employees Conduct an exit interview -- ask the right questions: Do you have any company documents or materials at home? Have you returned all flash drives containing company information? Have you stored any company documents in the cloud? Do you understand that your non-disclosure obligations remain in effect? Ask about the new job: new employer, position, duties, and responsibilities. Disable employee s access to computer systems and networks Investigate prior to exit interview whether employee has taken, forwarded, or retains any company documents or files and ask for its return Review employee s projects to ensure that all property has been returned Utilize a written agreement with the employee to clarify the ownership and use of the company s resources and IP Consider using an exit interview certification Inform the employee that the company expects departing employees to conform their conduct accordingly and instruct the employee to provide a copy of the agreement to his or her new employer. Crowell & Moring 19

20 Patent Assignments & Employment Contracts: Litigation Fallout Robert Schaffer, Partner Troutman Sanders, LLP Strafford Webinar May 3, 2018

21 OWNERSHIP: GUIDING PRINCIPLES Assignments are contracts, governed by local law Patent infringement is governed by federal law Federal court applies local law as needed Standing via assignment is a federal question All patent owners must join infringement suit Intensly fact-specific (many dissents) 21

22 Patent Ownership Through Assignment Under US law, inventions (and patent rights) are jointly owned by all inventors, unless assigned by an employment agreement or separate contract. Ownership by assignment is a question of state law. Bd. of Trustees Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff d, Bd. of Trustees Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 131 S. Ct Whether a contract is a present assignment of patent rights, or an agreement to assign rights in the future, is a question of federal law. Id. See also, DDB Techs., L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, LP., 517 F.3d 1284, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Federal patent law preempts state contract law because this question is intimately bound up with the question of standing in patent cases. Id. 22

23 Do Assign / Will Assign The Standford Case (2009) I agree to assign or confirm in writing is a promise to assign in the future. Stanford, 583 F.3d at (Later steps must perfect the assignment.) I will assign and do hereby assign is a present assignment of a future interest. Id. ( Do has already happened and supersedes will.) A present assignment of a future right automatically ( by operation of law ) vests legal title in each assigned invention as it comes into being. Id. Previous promise of future assignment, or later assignment to another, is void. Promise to execute assignment documents is consistent with present assignment of a future interest (may or may not be necessary). The Supreme Court affirmed Stanford on other grounds. Justice Breyer dissented, arguing that slight linguistic differences should not thwart the original intent of the parties regarding assignment. 131 S. Ct. at

24 Do Assign / Will Assign The Advanced Video Case (2017) will assign to the Company is a promise to assign in the future. Advanced Video Techs. LLC v. HTC Corp., 879 F.3d 1314, (2017). will hold in trust is consistent with a future assignment. Id. (no chain of transfer from trust to plantiff). In California, a trust beneficiary may not sue. Id. A quitclaim to assigned rights does not cover future assignable rights. Id. Failure to assign is a breach of contract. Id. Beneficiary may need state law claim to acquire title but note statute of limitations. Contrary to the Advanced Video dissent, inference of intent does not trump an unfulfilled promise to assign. No standing to sue. Id.; see also IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Comput., Inc., 503 F.3d 1324, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Change of verb tense to assigned hereunder did not matter. Employer did not execute documents as agency with an interest under relevant terms. 24

25 Local Law Considerations Interpretation Tools Assignment provisions are governed by application state or foreign law. Other countries may vest patent rights in corporations (patent applicant ). Can assignor execute an assignment with no assignee signature? Yes in Illinois Bldg. P ship v. Testa Produce, Inc., 381 Ill. App. 3d 751, 756, 886 N.E.2d 1156, 1163 (1st Dist. 2008)(if facts show acceptance). Elsewhere? If the assignee or other term is ambiguous, local law controls. Some courts use integration and four corners rule to find ambiguity. If term is ambiguous, extrinsic evidence may help establish intent. An ambiguous assignee probably means the employer (fair, customary usage). Form agreements may implicate extrinsic evidence to decide specific intent. Third party rights may implicate extrinsic evidence, e.g. collaboration partners (companies and universities). 25

26 Chain of Title & Standing to Enforce Patents The Last 10 Years United States v. Dubilier Condenser Corp., 289 U.S. 178 (1933). Title to a patent can pass only by assignment. Agreements to assign are specifically enforced. Rights and obligations regarding employee invention spring from employment contract. Persons employed to make inventions are bound to assign patents. General employment does not require assignment. Courts are reluctant to infer agreement to assign. Employment to do research is not to invent. Different rights do not apply to the US government. Id. at , 193. Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead, 832 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Employer may have shop rights (equitable) but not legal title and standing. Unsigned contract may be binding if practiced; but assignment clause must be explicit. Westerngeco L.L.C. v. Ion Geophysical Corp., 791 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2015) Inventor testimony may prove an obligation to assign, without copy of agreement (dicta). Assignment filed in USPTO is sufficient for standing. 26

27 Chain of Title & Standing to Enforce Patents The Last 10 Years Preston v. Marathon Oil Co., 684 F.3d 1276 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In Wyoming, second employment agreement can supplement first agreement by adding obligation to assign, without new consideration. Invention included reduction to practice; vague conception prior to employment not excluded. Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc., 666 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir 2012). In New Jersey, consulting agreement that fails to explicitly incorporate relevant provisions of earlier employment contract does not require assignment. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc. v. Navinta LLC, 625 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Under "promise to assign" cases, a subsequent written agreement is necessary to consummate assignment, which is effective when executed. FilmTec Corp., 939 F.2d 1568 at 1573 (inventor "agrees to grant and does hereby grant"); Speedplay, 211 F.3d at 1253 (employee hereby conveys, transfers, and assigns inventions that "belong exclusively to employer). 27