WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc.
631 F.3d 1257
| Fed. Cir. | 2010Background
- WiAV owns the '205 and '920 patents and seeks exclusive license rights in the Mindspeed Patents in the Wireless Handset field.
- Six third parties hold varying rights to license the Mindspeed Patents (Rockwell Science Center, Conexant, Skyworks, Mindspeed, Qualcomm, Sipro).
- WiAV sued multiple device manufacturers for infringement; Mindspeed was named as defendant patent owner to satisfy prudential standing.
- District court dismissed Mindspeed counts for lack of constitutional standing, holding WiAV Lacked exclusive rights due to third-party licensing rights.
- This court reverses, holds WiAV has standing to pursue Mindspeed Patents, and remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does WiAV have constitutional standing to assert Mindspeed Patents? | WiAV is an exclusive licensee with exclusionary rights in Mindspeed Patents in Wireless Handsets. | WiAV's rights are limited by preexisting third-party licensing, so it cannot be exclusive. | WiAV has standing; exclusionary rights sufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Textile Prods., Inc. v. Mead Corp., 134 F.3d 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (exclusive licensee requires explicit exclusionary rights; respectful of existing licenses)
- Mars, Inc. v. Coin Acceptors, Inc., 527 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (implied exclusive license requires exclusive rights; presence of third-party licenses defeats implied exclusivity)
- Alfred E. Mann Found. for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (licensee can be exclusive despite licensor retaining litigation rights)
- Propat Int’l Corp. v. RPost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (standing requires a legally protected interest in the patent)
- Intellectual Prop. Dev., Inc. v. TCI Cablevision of Cal., 248 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (standing derives from rights to exclude in patent act)
- Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (exclusive licensees identified by exclusionary rights may sue)
- Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. Genetics Inst., Inc., 52 F.3d 1026 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (standing for licensees requires holding proprietary sticks from patent rights)
- Sicom Sys., Ltd. v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., 427 F.3d 971 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (nonexclusive licenses confer no standing; exclusionary rights matter)