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

August 11, 2025

In considering a motion to dismiss infringement claims for two related patents, the District of Massachusetts recently held that pre-suit knowledge of a “parent” patent, without more, is insufficient to establish pre-suit knowledge of the “child” patent for purposes of indirect and willful infringement.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 8, 2025

Following a jury verdict finding trade secret misappropriation, the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted-in-part a plaintiff’s motion for a permanent injunction to prohibit defendants from using plaintiff’s trade secrets. The district court further required defendants to reassign to plaintiff patents and patent applications that disclosed or were derived from plaintiff’s trade secrets as part of its equitable relief.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 6, 2025

In ruling on a recent motion to strike, a judge in the Eastern District of Texas permitted a damages expert to rely on a damages theory based on defendant’s “avoided costs,” holding that this theory did not run afoul of the “entire market value rule.”

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board after concluding that the board’s analysis of licensing evidence offered as a secondary consideration of nonobviousness constituted legal error and was not supported by substantial evidence. According to the court, the board applied a more exacting and improperly heightened nexus standard than is required by law for license evidence.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

A Northern District of California judge recently granted a motion to reconsider his summary judgment ruling that defendant was barred from raising certain “device art” due to IPR estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). In the original ruling, the judge adopted the broader rule that IPR estoppel applies to device art that is “materially identical” to patents or printed publications that petitioners raised, or could have raised, in an IPR. Following that ruling, however, the Federal Circuit issued its Ingenico decision adopting the narrower view that IPR estoppel applies only to “grounds” based on patents and printed publications and not to device-based grounds. Citing Ingenico as a “change of law,” defendant moved for reconsideration of the court’s ruling, and the court granted the motion.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 5, 2025

In a recent decision designated as Informative, the USPTO Director determined that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board abused its discretion by instituting two inter partes review proceedings challenging the same patent, based on petitions advancing different constructions of the same claim term. The Director expressed concerns that permitting multiple petitions based on alternative claim constructions effectively circumvents word count limitations, strains board resources, and undermines procedural efficiency.

...

Read More

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

© 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.