Shower Enclosures America, Inc. v. BBC Distribution Corp., 3:15-cv-00627

Background

Plaintiff Shower Enclosures America, Inc. sued BBC Distribution for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,174,944.
The patent’s face and the recorded assignment list the assignee as “Shower Enclosures, Inc.” at an Ontario, CA address, not "Shower Enclosures America, Inc.".
The assignment was executed and recorded before this lawsuit; BBC does not contest the assignment’s validity but argues the named assignee is a different/nonexistent entity, so plaintiff lacks standing.
Inventor and signer Mike Clark (an officer of Shower Enclosures America, Inc.) submitted an affidavit stating the omission of “America” was an inadvertent typographical error and his intent was to assign the patent to Shower Enclosures America, Inc.
The court found the assignment ambiguous under California law and considered extrinsic evidence (Clark’s affidavit) to determine the parties’ intent.
The court concluded the typographical error did not defeat standing because the preexisting written assignment and extrinsic evidence show the assignor intended to transfer rights to Shower Enclosures America, Inc.; BBC’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss was denied.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiff had Article III standing to sue for patent infringement	The assignment named “Shower Enclosures, Inc.” was a typographical error; assignor intended to assign to Shower Enclosures America, Inc., so plaintiff held enforceable title at suit inception	The assignee named in the assignment is a different/nonexistent entity; therefore plaintiff lacks standing to sue	Court held plaintiff had standing because the assignment was ambiguous and extrinsic evidence showed intent to assign to Shower Enclosures America, Inc.
Whether the typographical error voids the assignment	The error is clerical and does not negate the parties’ mutual intent to transfer rights to plaintiff	The misnamed assignee means the assignment did not vest rights in plaintiff	Court held clerical/typographical errors do not negate an otherwise valid assignment when intent is clear; assignment stands for plaintiff
Whether post-filing fixes (nunc pro tunc assignments) are at issue	Plaintiff relied on an existing, recorded assignment executed before filing	Defendant implied plaintiff seeks to cure standing retroactively	Court distinguished this case from retroactive-assignment cases because assignment existed before suit; thus not barred
Applicability of state-law contract interpretation to patent ownership	California contract law governs interpretation of the assignment executed in California	Same	Court applied California law: contract ambiguous; extrinsic evidence admissible; intent controls

Key Cases Cited

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility standard for pleadings)
Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir.) (constitutional vs. prudential standing in patent suits)
Paradise Creations, Inc. v. UV Sales, Inc., 315 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir.) (enforceable title at suit inception required for patent standing)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing principles)
Schreiber Foods, Inc. v. Beatrice Cheese, Inc., 402 F.3d 1198 (Fed. Cir.) (post-filing cures cannot create retroactive jurisdictional standing)
My Mail, Ltd. v. Am. Online, Inc., 476 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir.) (state law governs patent title questions)
Enzo APA & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir.) (rejecting nunc pro tunc assignments to cure standing)
Gaia Techs., Inc. v. Reconversion Techs., Inc., 93 F.3d 774 (Fed. Cir.) (same)
Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., 211 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir.) (scrivener’s error in license does not negate standing)