Memorylink Corp. v. Motorola Solutions, Inc., 773 F.3d 1266

Memorylink and Motorola collaborated to develop a handheld wireless video system; Memorylink formed to fund the venture.
In 1998, inventors Strandwitz, Kniskern, Schulz, and Wyckoff executed an Assignment transferring rights to Motorola and Memorylink.
The ’352 patent lists Strandwitz, Kniskern, Schulz, and Wyckoff as inventors and issued in 2003.
Memorylink later alleged misinventorship and sought to void the Assignment; Motorola moved for summary judgment on consideration and patent ownership.
The district court held there was consideration and that Motorola could not infringe as a joint owner; tort claims were dismissed as time-barred.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, upholding the contract-based grant of summary judgment and the dismissal of untimely tort claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there valid consideration for the Assignment?	Memorylink contends consideration was lacking since Motorola employees’ interests could not be assigned.	Motorola asserts explicit consideration in the four-corners document and additional consideration (prosecution, support, opportunities).	No genuine dispute; there was valid consideration.
Did the Assignment make Motorola a joint owner precluding infringement liability?	Assignment failed to transfer ownership or provide valid consideration to Memorylink.	Assignment unambiguously conveyed rights and included consideration, making Motorola a joint owner.	Motorola was a joint owner; no infringement liability.
Did Memorylink's tort claims accrue and were they timely filed?	Discovery rule tolls accrual for fraudulent claims due to attorney misrepresentations.	Accrual occurred when facts were known or should have been known; discovery rule does not toll.	Tort claims accrued long before suit and were time-barred.
Were the patent infringement and related claims properly decided on summary judgment?	Disputed inventorship and ownership raise triable issues.	There was a valid Assignment and no genuine factual dispute on ownership.	Summary judgment for Motorola on noninfringement affirmed.

Urban Sites of Chicago, LLC v. Crown Castle USA, 979 N.E.2d 480 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012) (four-corners contract interpretation rule)
Melena v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 847 N.E.2d 99 (Ill. 2006) (consideration sufficiency; not evaluating adequacy)
Carter v. SSC Odin Operating Co., 976 N.E.2d 344 (Ill. 2012) (inquiry into consideration not based on adequacy)
Gavery v. McMahon & Elliott, 670 N.E.2d 822 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (court not examining adequacy of consideration absent gross inadequacy)
Horbach v. Kaczmarek, 288 F.3d 969 (7th Cir. 2002) (discovery rule for fraud claims; accrual timing)
Weger v. Shell Oil Co., 966 F.2d 216 (7th Cir. 1992) (attorney fault not tolling accrual)
Witherell v. Weimer, 421 N.E.2d 869 (Ill. 1981) (accrual about knowledge of claim; misstatement not tolling)
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (1979) (standard for accrual and discovery in fraud)
Perry v. Sullivan, 207 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2000) (statute of limitations accrual; tolling standards)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; burdens of proof)
Killingsworth v. HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., 507 F.3d 614 (7th Cir. 2007) (statute of limitations and accrual considerations)
Lexion Med., LLC v. Northgate Techs., Inc., 641 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reviewing summary judgment under Seventh Circuit law)