Jaffé v. Samsung Electronics Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
737 F.3d 14 (2013)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Qimonda AG, a German corporation that made semiconductors, filed for bankruptcy in Germany. The German court appointed Michael Jaffé (plaintiff) to administer Qimonda’s assets, which included some 4,000 United States patents that were subject to cross-licensing agreements with other semiconductor manufacturers (collectively, licensees), including Samsung Electronics Company, Ltd. (defendant). Jaffé filed a petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (chapter 15) requesting recognition of the foreign proceeding. Jaffé also notified the licensees that, under the German insolvency code, the licenses were no longer enforceable. The bankruptcy court entered an order recognizing the German proceeding and, after an evidentiary hearing, ordered that Jaffé must afford the licensees rights under 11 U.S.C. § 365(n), which limited a bankruptcy trustee’s ability to unilaterally reject licenses to the debtor’s intellectual property by allowing the debtor’s licensees to elect to retain rights under the licenses. In so ruling, the court found that the potential harm to licensees from rejection of the licenses would slow the pace of innovation in the United States, to the detriment of the United States economy. Therefore, protection of the licensees’ interests was necessary to further the public policy underlying § 365(n). Jaffé appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Niemeyer, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.