Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Vapor Point LLC v. Moorhead

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Decided August 10, 2016No. 2015-1801; 2015-2003Published

1ConcurrenceO’Malley, Circuit Judge

I agree that the district court’s conclusions on inventorship are, as detailed in the majority opinion, supported by substantial evidence. I also agree that, by the stipulated dismissal of all state law claims and through its representations to the district court, NanoVapor’s counsel waived its right to an additional hearing on whether it has the right to assert ownership over the patent interests of Nathan and Mathe-son. I write separately, however, because I. believe that, even if we did not find waiver, 35 U.S.C. § 261 requires NanoVapor to demonstrate that any assignment of patent rights…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Crown Die & Tool Co. v. Nye Tool & MacHine WorksSupreme Court of the United States · 1923
  2. Solomons v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1890
  3. Standard Parts Co. v. PeckSupreme Court of the United States · 1924
  4. Arachnid, Inc., Plaintiff/cross-Appellant v. Merit Industries, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1991
  5. Speedplay, Inc. v. Bebop, Inc., Defendant/cross-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2000

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API