Analysis of the Licensee's Status as plaintiff in Industrial Property Infringement lawsuits; A Comparative Study in E.U., U.S., and Iranian Law

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Prof. of International Trade Law, Department of International Trade, Intellectual Property and Cyberspace Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

2 PhD student in International Trade and Investment Law, Department of International Trade, Intellectual Property and Cyberspace Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

One of the areas where intellectual property law, contract law, and civil procedure intersect, is in determining the persons who have standing to sue for infringement of industrial property rights. In many countries, in addition to the owner, licensees are authorized to sue for infringement under specific conditions. Establishing standing for a licensee comes from the fact that the infringement also affects the interests and investments of the licensee, and for various reasons, including the difficulty and complexity of legal proceedings, sometimes owners are unwilling or unable to sue; In such instances, if the licensee lacks standing to sue, not only licensee's interests, but also interests of the society and legislative objectives of granting exclusive rights will be affected due to the failure to sue for infringement. Moreover, failure to establish standing to sue for licensees may result in a decrease in the worth of intellectual property, consequently reducing the motivation of innovators and investors. By examining the regulations of the European Union and the United States, and utilizing their legal precedents, this study aims to analyze the provisions of the “Law on Patents, Industrial Designs and Trademarks (2007)” and the "Industrial Property Protection Bill (2023)" with regards to licensee standing to sue. The study will critique these regulations and ultimately provide an interpretation that is both compatible with the economic realities of the country and serves the aims of the legislator, the interests of society, the holders of industrial property rights and licensees.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Abate, Mark J. and Christopher J. Morten; “Standing with a Bundle of Sticks: The All Substantial Rights Doctrine in Action”; Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J, No.3, 2018.
  2. Abate, Mark J. and James Breen; “The All Substantial Rights Doctrine: A Second Look”; Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. L.J, No.4, 2020.
  3. AIPPI; “Q190: Summary Report”; 2006.
  4. BIRPI, “Model Law for Developing Countries on Marks, Trade Names, And Acts of Unfair Competition”; Geneva, 1967.
  5. Blair, Roger D. and Thomas F. Cotter; “The Elusive Logic of Standing Doctrine in Intellectual Property Law”; Tulane Law Review, 1999-2000.
  6. Brennan, John L.; “Determining Trademark Standing in the Wake of Lexmark”; Notre Dame Law Review, No.4, 2015.
  7. Burstein, Michael J.; “Rethinking Standing in Patent Challenges”; The George Washington Law Review, No.498, 2015.
  8. Calboli, Irene; “Trademark Transactions in the United States: Towards a De Facto Acceptance of Trading in Gross?”; in: The Law and Practice of Trademark Transactions; Calboli, Irene and Jacques de Werra (ed), Edward Elgar, 2016.
  9. Contreras Jorge L.; Intellectual Property Licensing and Transactions; Cambridge University Press, 2022.
  10. de Werra[1], Jacques; “Can Exclusive Licensees Sue for Infringement of Licensed IP Rights?: A Case Study Confirming the Need to Create Global IP Licensing Rules”, Harv. J.L. & Tech, Vol. 30, 2017 (Symposium Issue).
  11. de Werra[2], Jacques; “International IP Licensing Transactions: Time to Adopt Global Rules for the Right of Exclusive Licensees to Sue for Infringement of the Licensed IP Rights?”; International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No.48, April 2017.
  12. Einhorn, David; “Contracts regarding Intellectual Property Rights (assignments and licenses) and Third Parties (U.S.)”; Yearbook of AIPPI, 2006/I.
  13. Greene, Timothy D.; “All Substantial Rights: Toward Sensible Patent Licensee Standing”, Fed Circuit Bar J, vol. 22, 2012-2013.
  14. Höpperger, Marcus; “Trademark Transactions and the Normative Framework of the World Intellectual Property Organization”. in: The Law and Practice of Trademark Transactions; Irene Calboli and Jacques de Werra (eds); Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016.
  15. INTA; “Model Trademark Law Guidelines: A Report on Consensus Points for Trademark Laws”; International Trademark Association, 2019.
  16. Jacobson, P. Kohli, Mary Atkinson, Ryan Edmondson & Michael Meredith; “Unied States of America”; in: International Trademark Licensing, Stojan Arnerstal (ed), Wolters Kluwer, 2021.
  17. Knoll, Kelly; “Confusion Likely: Standing Requirements for Legal Representatives under the Lanham Act”; Columbia Law Review, vol.115, 2015.
  18. Landsman,Kim J., Daniel C. Glazer, and Irene C. Treloar; “Standing and Joinder Considerations in Trademark Litigation and Licenses”; The L.J. of the INTA, No.6, November-December, 2009.
  19. Liddicoat, Johnathon; “Standing on the Edge–What Type of ‘‘Exclusive Licensees’’ Should be Able to Initiate Patent Infringement Actions?”; International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law, No.48, August 2017.
  20. Nguyen, Xuan-Thao; “Patent Prudential Standing”; George Mason Law Review, No.123, 2013.
  21. Tilmann, Winfried and Clemens Plassmann; “Unified Patent Protection in Europe: A Commentary”; Oxford University Press, 2018.
  22. Tushnet, Rebecca; “Running the Gamut From A to B: Federal Trademark and False Advertising Law”; University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.159, 2011.
  23. WIPO; “Draft Act on the Protection of Patents, Industrial Design and Marks for the Islamic Republic of Iran”, April 1999.

Cases

E.U.

  1. Jean Christian Perfumes Ltd v Sanjay Thakrar [2011] EWHC 1383 (Ch) (27 May 2011).
  2. pl sp. z o.o. sp.k. v. Procter & Gamble International Operations SA, In Case C‑355/21 (2022).
  3. Thomas Philipps GmbH & Co. KG v Grüne Welle Vertriebs GmbH, In Case C-419/15 (2016).
  4. Youssef Hassan v. Breiding Vertriebsgesellschaft mbH, In Case C-163/15 (2016).

U.S.

  1. Ahmed v. Hosting.com, 28 F. Supp. 3d 82 (D. Mass. 2014).
  2. Alfred E. Mann Foun. for SCI. v. Cochlear Corp., 604 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
  3. Alps South, LLC v. Ohio Willow Wood Co., 787 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
  4. Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Miracle Optics, Inc., 434 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
  5. AsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Medical, LLC, 582 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
  6. Calvin Klein Jeanswear Co. v. Tunnel Trading, No. 98 Civ. 5408, 2001 WL 1456577, (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 16, 2001).
  7. Finance Inv. Co.(Bermuda) Ltd. v. GEBERIT AG, 165 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 1998).
  8. International Gamco, Inc. v. Multimedia Games, 504 F.3d 1273 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
  9. Kia Motors America, Inc. v. Autoworks Distributing, Civil No. 06-156 (DWF/JJG) (D. Minn. Dec. 7, 2007).
  10. Lexmark Intern. v. Static Control, 572 U.S. 118, 134 S. Ct. 1377, 188 L. Ed. 2d 392 (2014).
  11. Lone Star Silicon Innovations v. Nanya Technology, 925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
  12. Luminara Worldwide v. Liown Electronics Co. Ltd., 814 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
  13. National Licensing v. Inland Joseph Fruit, 361 F. Supp. 2d 1244 (E.D. Wash. 2004).
  14. Nova Wines, Inc. v. Adler Fels Winery LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Cal. 2006).
  15. Reynolds Consumer Products, Inc. v. Handi-Foil Co, No. 1: 13-cv-214 (E.D. Va. July 18, 2014).
  16. Total Petroleum Puerto Rico Corp. v. TC Oil, Corp., 634 F. Supp. 2d 212 (D.P.R. 2009).
  17. University of South Florida Research Foundation v. Fujifilm Medical Systems U.S.A., INC, 19 F.4th 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
  18. WiAV Solutions LLC v. Motorola, Inc., 631 F.3d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics