Securities Attorney for Going Public Transactions

Securities Lawyer Blog

knowledge itself is power

Exclusionary Rights

The recent petition for writ of certiorari filed by Zebra Technologies challenges a significant ruling by the Federal Circuit that could reshape the landscape of patent enforcement and litigation. This case presents a crucial question for patent holders, particularly those involved in litigation finance, about the nature of exclusionary rights and the implications for Article III standing. At Destiny Aigbe, we understand the complexities involved in patent litigation and the importance of navigating the legal intricacies of standing, ownership rights, and licensing agreements.

Understanding the Case: Zebra Technologies v. Intellectual Tech LLC

Zebra Technologies' petition stems from a Federal Circuit decision that upheld a patent owner's standing to sue for infringement, despite a third party holding significant rights to assign, license, and enforce the patent. This situation is increasingly common in the context of patent litigation finance, where litigation funders seek legal assurances and collateral rights that can, paradoxically, challenge the standing of the patent owner.

In this case, the patent at issue was subject to a security agreement granting Main Street Capital significant rights upon the patent owner's default. After the patent owner defaulted on payments, Main Street Capital acquired the right to "sell, assign, transfer, . . . or otherwise dispose of the Patents," including enforcing the patents and any licenses thereunder. Despite these rights, the Federal Circuit found that the patent owner retained enough exclusionary rights to maintain standing to sue for infringement.

Key Legal Questions: Exclusionary Rights and Standing

The central legal question raised in Zebra Technologies' petition is whether a party has Article III standing to assert a patent infringement claim when an accused infringer has the ability to obtain a license from a third party. The answer to this question has profound implications for the structure of patent rights and the enforcement of those rights in court.

The Supreme Court's historic rulings have placed limits on the division of patent ownership and enforcement rights, aiming to prevent excessive fragmentation of patent rights that could lead to multiple, overlapping lawsuits and internal disputes among assignees. However, the Federal Circuit's decision in this case appears to challenge these long-standing principles, creating potential uncertainty for patent holders and litigants alike.

The Federal Circuit's Ruling and Its Implications

In its ruling, the Federal Circuit distinguished between constitutional standing and the separate issue of whether a party qualifies as a "patentee" under 35 U.S.C. § 281. The court determined that Main Street's rights were merely an "unexercised option," which did not strip the patent owner of its exclusionary rights. This decision was based on prior cases, such as Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc. and Alfred E. Mann Found. for Sci. Rsch. v. Cochlear Corp., which supported the idea that a patent owner retains exclusionary rights even when another party holds licensing rights.

However, the petition argues that the Federal Circuit has not provided a clear definition of "exclusionary rights," leading to unpredictability in the application of standing principles. This lack of clarity is particularly concerning in light of previous decisions like WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., where the court held that an exclusive licensee lacks standing to sue a party that can obtain a license from another entity with the right to grant it.

The Double Standard in Standing Principles

A critical point of contention in Zebra Technologies' petition is the perceived double standard in how standing principles are applied to patent owners versus licensees. The Federal Circuit's decision suggests that a patent owner inherently possesses exclusionary rights unless they are explicitly transferred away, while a licensee does not hold such rights unless they are exclusively granted. This distinction, the petition argues, is not meaningful and creates inconsistent outcomes in patent litigation.

The petition urges the Supreme Court to provide clarity on this issue, particularly in cases where third-party rights, such as those held by litigation funders or security interest holders, complicate the question of standing. Resolving this issue is essential for ensuring that patent holders can effectively enforce their rights without facing unnecessary legal hurdles.

Conclusion: Navigating the Complexities of Patent Litigation

At our Law Firm, we recognize that patent litigation involves numerous challenges, particularly in the evolving landscape of standing and third-party rights. The outcome of Zebra Technologies v. Intellectual Tech LLC could have significant implications for how patents are enforced and how litigation finance structures are managed.

Our firm is dedicated to helping clients navigate these complexities, offering expert legal advice on patent rights, standing issues, and the strategic considerations involved in patent enforcement. If you are involved in patent litigation or are concerned about the implications of third-party rights on your patent portfolio, we encourage you to reach out to our experienced team for guidance.

Contact us today to learn more about how we can support your patent litigation needs and help you protect your intellectual property rights.

Gayatri Gupta