Nano-Proprietary, Inc. v. Keesmann

2007 WL 433100, No. 06 C 2689 (2007)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Nano-Proprietary, Inc. v. Keesmann

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
2007 WL 433100, No. 06 C 2689 (2007)

  • Written by Brett Stavin, JD

Facts

On May 26, 2000, Nano-Proprietary, Inc. (NPI) (plaintiff), a technology company, entered into a patent license agreement with German citizen Till Keesmann (defendant). [Editor’s Note: The casebook excerpt misspells Keesmann’s name in the case title.] The agreement provided NPI with the exclusive and worldwide license rights, including sublicense rights, to certain of Keesmann’s patents. The parties entered into the agreement with the understanding that NPI would sell sublicenses for the patents to third parties. Additionally, NPI agreed that it would support Keesmann in maintenance of the patent, including strengthening the patent. NPI also agreed to enforce the patent against infringers. Keesmann agreed to not license the patent to any other party and to not unreasonably withhold approval of sublicenses. As consideration for the exclusive license, NPI agreed to pay royalties to Keesmann on a quarterly basis, amounting to a total sum of $1 million within four years from the commencement of the agreement. The patents related to carbon nanotubes, which the parties viewed as having substantial potential in the flat-panel-display market, including the ability to displace plasma and liquid crystal displays. On March 22, 2006, Keesmann provided NPI with notice of termination of the agreement, alleging that NPI had defaulted under the agreement because NPI failed to actively market the patents, failed to adequately enforce the patents against infringement, and failed to comply with audit requests. NPI responded that it was not in default under the agreement. Additionally, NPI filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking to enjoin Keesmann from terminating the agreement. NPI sought a preliminary injunction from the court to enjoin termination of the agreement pending the outcome of the litigation. Both parties agreed that the patents were preeminent in the field of nanotechnology. Keesmann argued that the public interest would be harmed if the patents were frozen pending litigation.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Andersen, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership