From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Propat International Corp. v. RPost, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
473 F.3d 1187, 81 U.S.P.Q.2d 1350 (2007)
Facts
Authenticational Technologies Ltd. (Authentix) was assigned Patent No. 6,182,219 (the 219 patent) and became the legal titleholder of the patent. A May 2002 agreement between Propat International Corp. (Propat) (plaintiff) and Authentix gave Propat rights and duties regarding the 219 patent that focused on patent-licensing and infringement-litigation services. The agreement named Authentix as the patent owner and stated that Authentix retained responsibility to maintain the 219 patent. Under the agreement, Authentix retained an economic interest in any proceeds from patent licensing and lawsuits, had the right to be notified of any licensing and litigation decisions and could veto such decisions if the veto was reasonable, and had unlimited power to prevent Propat from transferring its interest in the 219 patent to any third parties. The agreement included a provision explicitly granting Propat the right to sue. Propat sued RPost, Inc.; RPost U.S., Inc.; RPost International Limited; and three related individuals (collectively, RPost) (defendants) in federal court for infringement of the 219 patent. Propat and RPost filed cross-motions that sought to address whether Propat had standing to file suit in relation to the 219 patent. The district court held that Propat did not have standing to file an infringement action. Propat appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 604,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 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.
