Intellectual Property Development, Inc. v. Tci Cablevision of California, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that a transferee that possessed the exclusive right to file suit still did not possess all substantial rights
• explaining that a “party such as IPD that has the right to exclude others from making, using, and selling an invention described in the claims of a patent is constitutionally injured by another entity that makes, uses, or sells the invention”
• referring to a patent as a ‘bundle of rights’ which may be divided and assigned, or retained in whole or in part
• “[A]n exclusive licensee having fewer than all substantial patent rights ... that seeks to enforce its rights in a patent generally must sue jointly with the patent owner.”
• “A grant of all substantial rights in a patent amounts to an assignment—that is, a transfer of title in the patent—which confers constitutional standing on the assignee to sue another for patent infringement in its own name.”
• “[A] nonexclusive license or ‘bare’ license ... confers no constitutional standing on the licensee under the Patent Act to bring suit or even to join a suit with the patentee because a nonexclusive (or ‘bare’) licensee suffers no legal injury from infringement.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).