Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
211 F.3d 1245 (2000)
- Written by Jenny Perry, JD
Facts
Richard Bryne was the chief executive officer and founder of Speedplay, Inc. (plaintiff). Bryne filed a patent for a clipless bicycle cleat and pedal system and licensed the patent to Speedplay in exchange for Speedplay common stock. The license agreement gave Speedplay the sole right to enforce the patent; however, Bryne retained the option to initiate legal proceedings in his own name if Speedplay failed to halt an infringement within three months. The agreement also barred Speedplay from assigning its interest in the patent without Bryne’s consent, which could not be unreasonably withheld. Speedplay brought an action against Bebop, Inc. (defendant), alleging that Bebop was manufacturing and marketing a clipless bicycle pedal that infringed the patent. Bebop argued, in part, that Speedplay did not have standing to bring an infringement claim in its own name because Bryne had retained certain rights in the patent. The trial judge ruled that Bryne had transferred all rights, title, and interest to Speedplay; therefore, Speedplay had standing to assert the infringement claim. Following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment in favor of Bebop on the infringement claim. Speedplay appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
