Search results

Order by most recent / most popular / relevance

Results: 1-10 of 33

Continued employment may constitute consideration to support an agreement modifying terms of employment, and courts will narrowly construe terms excluding inventions from assignment to the employer

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
-
USA
-
March 29 2013

In Yale Preston v. Marathon Oil Co, the Federal Circuit confronted the issue of whether an invention by an employee was properly assigned to his

Respondent's motion to compel based on declaration from a former employee that complainant's counsel were in contact with current employees of respondent was denied where complainant's counsel represented to ALJ that no such contact had occurred

Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
-
USA
-
December 17 2012

Respondent ClearCorrect Pakistan (Private) Ltd. ("CCPL") moved to compel complainant Align Technology, Inc. ("Align") to produce documents and supplement responses to interrogatories

Parties’ employees may maintain work product protection, just not in this case

Holland & Knight LLP
-
USA
-
November 14 2012

Judge Cole denied defendant and counter-plaintiff Fujitsu’s motion for a protective order prohibiting plaintiff and counter-defendant Tellabs from getting discovery regarding Fujitsu’s inspection of Tellabs’ optical scanner in this patent litigation regarding optical amplifiers

Continued employment is sufficient consideration for IP assignment agreements

McDermott Will & Emery
-
USA
-
August 30 2012

Addressing the issue of patent ownership in the employment context, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found that an employment contract executed after the employee began working for the employer operated to automatically assign the rights to two patents to the employer with no additional consideration other than continued employment

Some assignments are more equal than others

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
-
USA
-
August 14 2012

Companies often have policies requiring employees to transfer rights to inventions developed by the employee on company time using company resources

Federal Circuit looks at intellectual property terms of employment agreement to decide patent ownership

Foley & Lardner LLP
-
USA
-
August 1 2012

In Preston v. Marathon Oil Co., the Federal Circuit examined the terms of an employment agreement in order to determine the owner of the patents at issue

Federal Circuit reminds us that IP assignments in employee agreements are important

Hunton & Williams LLP
-
USA
-
July 31 2012

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently reminded us of something we all know: employee agreements that include an express assignment of intellectual property are effective

Practice tips for employee IP assignment agreements

Foley Hoag LLP
-
USA
-
July 19 2012

A recent Federal Circuit decision discussing the effect of an Employee Intellectual Property Assignment Agreement upon the ownership of inventions made by the employee (Preston v. Marathon Oil Co., Nos. 2011-1013, -1026 (Fed. Cir. July 10, 2012) (decision here)) offers a number of practice pointers

Preston v. Marathon Oil Co.

Baker & Hostetler LLP
-
USA
-
July 18 2012

Even if we assume state law governs the issue and that state law would take a broader view of conception than would be applied normally in the patent context, we still find that an invention necessarily requires at least some definite understanding of what has been invented

General counsel update

Herbert Smith Freehills LLP
-
China, European Union, Germany, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Mongolia, Singapore, United Kingdom, USA
-
July 11 2012

This is the thirtieth in our series of general counsel updates which aim to summarise major developments in key areas

next >

Search results

Continued employment may constitute consideration to support an agreement modifying terms of employment, and courts will narrowly construe terms excluding inventions from assignment to the employer

Respondent's motion to compel based on declaration from a former employee that complainant's counsel were in contact with current employees of respondent was denied where complainant's counsel represented to ALJ that no such contact had occurred

Parties’ employees may maintain work product protection, just not in this case

Continued employment is sufficient consideration for IP assignment agreements

Some assignments are more equal than others

Federal Circuit looks at intellectual property terms of employment agreement to decide patent ownership

Federal Circuit reminds us that IP assignments in employee agreements are important

Practice tips for employee IP assignment agreements

Preston v. Marathon Oil Co.

General counsel update

Current Search

Suggested Facets

Author

Firm Name

Jurisdiction

Workarea