District Court Must Consider Joining Patent Owner Prior to Dismissal Where Licensee Lacks Substantial Rights to Bring Suit, but Possesses Article III Standing

Jun 17, 2019

Reading Time : 3 min

The licensee in this case, Lone Star Innovations LLC (“Lone Star”), sued multiple parties for infringement of various patents. After Lone Star produced its license agreement for the asserted patents, the accused infringers moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that Lone Star did not own the patents, and therefore could not bring suit as a patentee under Section 281. The district court agreed, dismissing the cases for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Because Lone Star asserted it was the sole owner of the asserted patents, the district court only considered whether Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), the original assignee of the asserted patents, transferred “all substantial rights” to the asserted patents to Lone Star.

On appeal, the Federal Circuit noted that three types of plaintiffs exist in infringement cases: (1) a patentee with “all rights or all substantial rights” in a patent, who may sue in its own name; (2) a licensee with “exclusionary rights,” who can sue along with the patentee; and (3) a licensee with no exclusionary rights, who has no authority to asset a patent, even with the patentee. The Federal Circuit then held the district court correctly found that Lone Star could not maintain an infringement suit alone because it did not hold “all substantial rights” in the patents. In reviewing the district court’s decision, the court looked at the totality of the agreement and focused on two salient rights: enforcement and alienation. The Federal Circuit found that Lone Star’s reliance on a provision conveying “all right, title and interest” to the asserted patents was not sufficient to show all substantial rights were transferred. Instead, and despite the broad transfer language, it found that other provisions demonstrated that AMD retained certain rights in the patents. In particular, the agreement identified several parties Lone Star could freely sue, but required Lone Star to obtain AMD’s consent to file suit against any party not specifically identified in the agreement. Additionally, the agreement restricted Lone Star’s ability to transfer the asserted patents by requiring AMD’s consent for any sale. AMD also secured a share of Lone Star’s “monetization” efforts related to the asserted patents. Thus, AMD maintained control on both alienation and enforcement of the asserted patents.

Although the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court’s analysis that Lone Star lacked “all substantial rights” in the patent, it disagreed with the district court’s conclusion that Lone Star lacked subject matter jurisdiction. More specifically, the Federal Circuit held that Lone Star had Article III standing because it possessed exclusionary rights and had alleged that those rights were infringed. In addition, challenges to Lone Star’s right to seek relief under the patent laws pursuant to Section 281 did not raise a question of subject matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court recently clarified that defects in “statutory standing” do not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 128, n. 4 (2014) (“the absence of a valid (as opposed to arguable) cause of action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction, i.e., the court’s statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case”). Acknowledging that Lexmark conflicted with its prior decisions, the Federal Circuit clarified that “whether a party possesses all substantial rights in a patent does not implicate standing or subject matter jurisdiction.”

Because Lone Star pleaded sufficient facts to establish Article III standing, the Federal Circuit held that the district court was required to consider whether AMD could have been or needed to be joined before dismissing the cases under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. As the court explained, Rule 19 provides a clear command that a necessary party who is subject to service and whose joinder will not otherwise destroy a court’s subject matter jurisdiction “must be joined.” Therefore, the district court could not dismiss Lone Star’s complaint without, at a minimum, considering whether AMD could be feasibly joined and if not, whether the case should proceed anyway or be dismissed because AMD is indispensable. The Federal Circuit remanded with an instruction to consider whether AMD must be joined here.

Practice Tip: When drafting patent license agreements that are intended to transfer all rights in the patents, including the right to sue, take a holistic approach, as opposed to relying on specific phrases or provisions that might be undermined by other provisions in the agreement.

Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Nanya Tech. Corp., Nos. 2018-1581, 2018-1582 (Fed. Cir. May 30, 2019)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

July 25, 2025

Earlier this year, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Qualcomm Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Qualcomm II) raised questions about the extent to which petitioners can rely on applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in inter partes review proceedings.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Shockwave Medical, Inc. v. Cardiovascular Sys., Inc. largely cabins the Qualcomm II decision to its particular facts and makes clear that AAPA can be used as evidence of background knowledge as part of an obviousness argument.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 11, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently reversed a PTAB determination on remand that a patent was obvious over applicant admitted prior art (“AAPA”) in combination with prior art patents, holding that expressly designating AAPA as a “basis” for a ground is improper under 35 U.S.C. § 311(b). In doing so, the Court rejected the PTAB’s “blanket rule” that “AAPA used in combination with prior art patents or printed publications under § 311(b) is ipso facto not the basis or part of the basis of a ground.” Ultimately, while the case clarifies that expressly listing AAPA in an IPR ground is improper, the precise line between proper and improper uses of AAPA in other instances remains unclear.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

July 1, 2025

In an appeal from an inter partes review, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that the enablement inquiry applied to prior art references in the context of an anticipation defense differs from the enablement inquiry applied when evaluating the claims of a patent.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 26, 2025

The Northern District of Ohio denied a motion to compel the plaintiff to produce test results referenced in its initial disclosures and complaint. The court found that because the “test results are not facts but rather are opinions,” the information was protected as work product. Furthermore, because that testing would not be used as evidence in the litigation, the defendant was not prejudiced.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit definitively held that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has jurisdiction over IPRs that concern expired patents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

June 6, 2025

In a patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap denied a joint motion to stay the litigation pending resolution of inter partes review when it was uncertain that all defendants would be bound by the statutory estoppel provision of 35 U.S.C. § 315(e).

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.