35 U.S.C. § 262
Joint owners
In the absence of any agreement to the contrary, each of the joint owners of a patent may make, use, offer to sell, or sell the patented invention within the United States, or import the patented invention into the United States, without the consent of and without accounting to the other owners.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 74
cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1966–2026 · leading case: Walter Beriont v. Gte Labs., 535 F. App'x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
Walter Beriont v. Gte Labs., 535 F. App'x 919 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “He contends that the 2005 state-court agreement did not effect a dismissal of the federal case or provide for full joint ownership of the ’802 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 262 . Instead, Beriont asserts that the parties contemplated only “equitable” joint ownership when reaching the…”
Shum v. Intel Corp., 629 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2010). “As a co-owner, Intel acquired and retains the right to make, use, license, offer to sell, or sell the inventions covered by the patents, with or without Shum's consent.”
Ultra-Precision Mfg. Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co., 338 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2003). “Shortly thereafter, UPM filed this action alleging unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and commercial misappropriation under Michigan state law and seeking, inter alia, substitution of inventorship in the '312 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 262 . UPM initially alleged that Herron…”
Philip Boynton v. Headwaters Inc, 564 F. App'x 803 (6th Cir. 2014). “Second, Headwaters submits that the applicable provisions of 35 U.S.C. § 262 shield it from liability to the plaintiffs for the sale of the patent by Davidson.”
Wisconsin Alumni Rsch. Found. v. Xenon Pharm., Inc., 591 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2010). “Xenon contends that federal law — specifically, 35 U.S.C. § 262— gives it the right to freely license its undivided one-half interest in the joint patent application without accounting to the Foundation under the terms of the Exclusive License Agreement.”
Tavory v. Ntp, Inc., 297 F. App'x 976 (Fed. Cir. 2008). “We also affirm the district court's dismissal of Tavory's unjust enrichment claim because it is preempted by 35 U.S.C. § 262 . Finally, we affirm the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint because the court did not abuse its discretion in holding that Tavory's…”
stc.unm v. Intel Corp., 754 F.3d 940 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “Unless STC can secure Sandia’s volun- tary joinder, obtain the ’998 patent (and ’321 patent) outright, or become the exclusive licensee of Sandia’s interest, STC cannot enforce the ’998 patent in court.”
Ultra-Precision Mfg., Ltd. v. Ford Motor Co., 411 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2005). “A non-jury trial was then held on the remaining inventorship count, and on March 30, 2004, the district court made findings of fact and concluded as a matter of law that Herron and Beard were not joint inventors.”
stc.unm v. Intel Corp., 767 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014). “, that another co-owner has a substantive right not to be involuntarily joined in enforcing the patent.”
Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Impression Prods., Inc., 816 F.3d 721 (Fed. Cir. 2016). “5; compare 35 U.S.C. § 262 (each joint owner of a patent may engage in making, using, selling, offering to sell, and importing without authority from other owners).”
John R. Willingham, Star Cutter Co., Joined as v. Norman B. Lawton, & Star Cutter Co., Party, 555 F.2d 1340 (6th Cir. 1977). “The nature of a patent is such that co-owners are at the mercy of each other.”
Massachusetts Eye & Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., 552 F.3d 47 (1st Cir. 2009). “We disposed of this claim in our prior decision, holding under the conflict preemption standard, that 35 U.S.C. § 262 permits suits like the present one.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.