Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03640-45/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1338 Patent Infringement

---

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

TECHNOLOGY PROPERTIES LIMITED LLC 

and MCM PORTFOLIO LLC, 

 

 Plaintiffs, 

 

 v. 

CANON INC. et al., 

 Defendants. 

________________________________/ 

No. C 14-3640 CW 

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO SET 

ASIDE 

(Docket No. 476) 

 Plaintiff Technology Properties Limited LLC (TPL), joined by 

MCM Portfolio LLC (MCM), moves the Court to set aside its previous 

order dismissing TPL's claims unless TPL and MCM could cure TPL's 

standing deficiency. The Court GRANTS TPL's motion. 

BACKGROUND 

 In an order dated June 17, 2016, the Court concluded that the 

CORE Flash Assignment dated April 16, 2015 divested TPL of its 

constitutional standing. Docket No. 465, Order. It dismissed 

TPL's claims and stayed the dismissal for one month to allow TPL 

and MCM to reach an agreement that would cure TPL's standing 

problem. TPL filed this motion, attaching a new Assignment 

between it and MCM. It is dated as of April 16, 2015, and makes 

the following assignments: 

1. MCM hereby assigns unto Assignee a fully alienable right to 

sue for and collect past, present and future damages by 

reason of past or present infringement of the Patents in Suit 

by Canon. 

2. MCM hereby assigns unto Assignee the exclusive rights: (a) to 

sue Canon with respect to the Patents in Suit, (b) to exclude 

Canon from practicing the Patents in Suit, (c) to pursue and 

collect past, present, and future damages and any other 

remedies of whatsoever kind or nature by reason of past, 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 508 Filed 08/24/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

present, or future infringement of the Patents in Suit by 

Canon, and (d) to license Canon with respect to the Patents 

in Suit. 

Docket No. 476-1, Assignment. MCM joined TPL's motion. TPL 

attached an Addendum to the Additional Assignment to its reply, 

also dated as of April 16, 2015. That Addendum states: 

1. MCM hereby assigns unto Assignee the exclusive license to the 

'443 and '424 Patents for the Field of Use. 

2. "Field of Use" means to make, have made, use, sell, have 

sold, import and have imported products bearing the Canon 

brand. 

Docket No. 488-1, Addendum.1

LEGAL STANDARD 

 The "touchstone of constitutional standing in a patent 

infringement suit is whether a party can establish that it has an 

exclusionary right in a patent that, if violated by another, would 

cause the party holding the exclusionary right to suffer legal 

injury." WiAV Sols. LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257, 1265 

(Fed. Cir. 2010). Grantees of exclusionary rights, or "exclusive 

licensees," are capable of suffering injury in fact for standing 

purposes. Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. 

Cir. 2007).2 Exclusive licensees are distinguishable from bare 

licensees, who do not have standing to sue, because bare licenses 

provide only a covenant not to sue. Ortho Pharm. Corp. v. 

Genetics Institute, Inc., 52 F.3d 1026, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

 1 TPL notes that "Canon" encompasses both Defendants here. 

2 Patentees are normally joined to suits filed by exclusive 

licensees "for the purpose of avoiding the potential for multiple 

litigations and multiple liabilities and recoveries against the 

same alleged infringer." Id. There is no dispute regarding this 

requirement because MCM, the patentee, is also a Plaintiff. 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 508 Filed 08/24/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

These nonexclusive licensees suffer no legal injury from 

infringement. Id. at 1031. By contrast, an exclusive licensee is 

a "beneficial owner of some identifiable part of the patentee's 

bundle of rights to exclude others." Id. at 1032. These 

proprietary rights are the rights to exclude others from making, 

using or selling the invention in the United States. Id. at 1031-

32. 

 Thus, the exclusive licensee must have rights in the patent 

beyond a right to sue a competitor for infringement. An exclusive 

licensee must possess "indicia of a true ownership interest in the 

patent, such as the right to transfer its interest." Propat Int'l 

Corp. v. Rpost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187, 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2007). 

Provisions in a licensing agreement that are "more consistent with 

the status of an agent than a co-owner" will weigh against 

concluding that a party is an exclusive licensee. Id. Further, a 

right-to-sue clause does not negate the requirement that a 

licensee "must have beneficial ownership of some of the patentee's 

proprietary rights." Ortho, 52 F.3d at 1034. 

Notably, an exclusive licensee need not be the only party 

with the ability to license the patent. WiAV, 631 F.3d at 1266. 

Rather, the exclusive licensee must be the only party from whom 

the defendant could potentially obtain a license. Id. at 1266-67. 

In other words, the question is whether the licensee "has shown 

that it has the right under the patents to exclude the Defendants 

from engaging in the alleged infringing activity and therefore is 

injured by the Defendants' conduct." Id. at 1267; see also Avago 

Techs. Fiber IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. v. IPtronics Inc., 2012 WL 

3835107, at *2 (N.D. Cal.) ("what matters is not the right to 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 508 Filed 08/24/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

 4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

exclude all others, but rather the right to exclude the particular 

defendant"). 

DISCUSSION 

 The Assignment and Addendum together make TPL an exclusive 

licensee of the patents in suit "bearing the Canon Brand." 

Addendum. The Addendum grants TPL the exclusive proprietary 

patent rights for the patents in suit that pertain to Canon. 

Further, nothing suggests that the exclusive license is 

inalienable. Finally, given the exclusivity of this license, 

Canon cannot obtain a license to use the patents in suit in its 

products from anyone other than TPL. The Court GRANTS TPL's 

motion to set aside its dismissal order. TPL's standing is 

reinstated. 

CONCLUSION 

For these reasons, the Court GRANTS TPL's motion to set 

aside. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 24, 2016 

CLAUDIA WILKEN 

United States District Judge 

Case 4:14-cv-03640-CW Document 508 Filed 08/24/16 Page 4 of 4