Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractlawsuitjurisdictionattorneysummary judgmentpatent
lawsuitpatent

Related Cases

Golden Eagle Distributing Corp. v. Burroughs Corp., 103 F.R.D. 124, 40 Fed.R.Serv.2d 346
View Case »
Macurdy v. Sikov & Love, P.A., 894 F.2d 818
View Case »
Swanson v. State Farm General Ins. Co., 219 Cal.App.4th 1153, 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 477, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,674, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 12,875
View Case »
Blue Water Sunset, LLC v. Markowitz, 192 Cal.App.4th 477, 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 641, 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1597, 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1923
View Case »
Santacroce v. Neff, 134 F.Supp.2d 366
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. v. Omron Oilfield & Marine, Inc., 676 Fed.Appx. 967

Facts

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (NOV) filed a lawsuit against Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc. (Omron) claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142. Omron moved to dismiss the case, arguing that NOV did not have standing to sue because it could not prove ownership of the patent. The district court found that an asset purchase agreement did not transfer the patent rights to NOV, leading to the dismissal of the case with prejudice and the award of attorney fees to Omron.

National Oilwell Varco, L.P. (NOV) filed a lawsuit against Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc. (Omron) claiming infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,474,142.

Issue

Did National Oilwell Varco, L.P. have standing to assert the patent infringement claim against Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc.?

Did National Oilwell Varco, L.P. have standing to assert the patent infringement claim against Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc.?

Rule

A party must establish standing to sue, which requires proving ownership of the patent at the time the suit is filed. The interpretation of contracts, including asset transfer agreements, is governed by state law.

A party must establish standing to sue, which requires proving ownership of the patent at the time the suit is filed.

Analysis

The court analyzed the asset contribution agreement (ACA) between Varco, L.P. and NOV, concluding that the ACA did not transfer the rights to the patent in question. The court noted that the ACA explicitly referred to the transfer of physical assets and did not include patents, as evidenced by the '0' entry in the relevant spreadsheet. Therefore, NOV could not prove ownership of the patent, leading to the conclusion that it lacked standing.

The court analyzed the asset contribution agreement (ACA) between Varco, L.P. and NOV, concluding that the ACA did not transfer the rights to the patent in question.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case with prejudice due to NOV's lack of standing to assert the patent. However, it vacated the summary judgment on patent invalidity and noninfringement because the district court lacked jurisdiction to rule on those issues.

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of the case with prejudice due to NOV's lack of standing to assert the patent.

Who won?

Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court upheld the dismissal of NOV's claims based on a lack of standing.

Omron Oilfield and Marine, Inc. prevailed in the case because the court upheld the dismissal of NOV's claims based on a lack of standing.

You must be