Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., Defendant/cross-Appellant

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that licensor retained no veto rights over licen- see’s litigation activities and licensee’s complete control over litigation suggested that licensee obtained substan- tial rights
• holding that licensor retained no veto rights over licensee’s litigation activities and licensee’s complete control over litigation suggested that licensee obtained substantial rights
• holding that a licensing agreement con- ferred standing even though the license agreement in- cluded the wrong patent number because “substantial patent rights were transferred”
• holding that a nearly-identical consent requirement “does not significantly restrict the scope of Speedplay’s rights in the ’778 patent”
• explaining that the right to sue is \illusory\ when one party \can render that right nugatory by granting the alleged infringer a royalty-free sublicense\
• holding assignee “automati- cally obtained title” to patent via assignment language that recited “hereby conveys, transfers and assigns”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).