uspto confirmatory assignment

Try our Advanced Search for more refined results

The Practice of Law

• Law360 Pulse

Business of Law

Law360 authority, deep news & analysis, tax authority, employment authority, insurance authority, real estate authority, bankruptcy authority, healthcare authority.

• Law360 Employment Authority
• Law360 Tax Authority
• Law360 Insurance Authority
• Law360 Real Estate Authority
• Law360 Healthcare Authority
• Law360 Bankruptcy Authority

• Law360 In-Depth
• Law360 Podcasts
• Regional Powerhouses
• Law360's MVPs
• Women in Law Report
• Diversity Snapshot
• Practice Groups of the Year
• Rising Stars
• Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
• Adv. Search & Platform Tools
• About all sections
• Browse all sections
• Class Action
• Competition

Expert Analysis

• Intellectual Property
• Product Liability
• Track attorneys
• Track judges
• Join the Law360 team
• Search legal jobs
• Learn more about Law360
• Read testimonials
• Contact Law360
• Sign up for our newsletters
• Law360 Company
• About Law360 Authority
• Resource Library

Considerations For Patent Assignments After Minerva Ruling

Law360 is on it, so you are, too..

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.

A Law360 subscription includes features such as

• Daily newsletters
• Expert analysis
• Advanced search
• Judge information
• Real-time alerts
• 450K+ searchable archived articles

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Related Sections

• Commercial Contracts
• Life Sciences
• Westman Champlin
• F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.
• Hologic Inc.
• Marathon Oil Corp.
• Minerva Surgical Inc.
• Unisys Corp.

Government Agencies

• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
• U.S. Supreme Court
• I forgot my password
• I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
• How do I sign up for a newsletter?

Already have access? Click here to login

Get instant access to the one-stop news source for business lawyers, sign up now for free access to this content.

Email (NOTE: Free email domains not supported)

PLEASE NOTE: A verification email will be sent to your address before you can access your trial.

Password (at least 8 characters required)

Confirm Password

Show all interests

Law360 may contact you in your professional capacity with information about our other products, services and events that we believe may be of interest. You’ll be able to update your communication preferences via the unsubscribe link provided within our communications. We take your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

Already have access?

• Password: Forgot your password?
• Remember login

Sign up for our Appellate newsletter

You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:.

Law360 takes your privacy seriously. Please see our Privacy Policy .

• Ten Questions about Confirmatory Assignments

1. Depending upon the applicable IP rights and related law of contract of the jurisdiction, to what extent can an unwritten agreement validly assign IP rights? 2. Assuming that an unwritten assigment is valid, what is the evidentiary showing that is required? 3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? 4. Is the evidentiary showing different in connection with establishing the validity of the assignment in the context of a transaction? 5. How can a purchaser receive sufficient comfort about the validity of the assignment, or is it a matter of risk allocation depending upon the positon of the parties? 6. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ once again in the context of a court proceeding? 7. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ yet again iin the context of taxation? 8. Is a confirmatory assignment a form of ratification? 9. If it not a form of ratification, what is the proper legal characterization for the agreement? 10. In light of all of the foregoing, does the confirmatory assignment confer any benefit to the parties, other evidentiary or substantive?

13 comments:

Confirmatory assignments are frequently used where a written assignment already exists, but the parties do not want to disclose that document because it contains sensitive information (e.g. payments, etc.). In addition, they are often used to confirm an 'automatic' assignment (e.g. from an employee to his/her employer). The latter may be useful, for example, when submitting a US application with UK inventors.

In the United States, this is a statutory question: "Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing." 35 USC Section 261. Your questions are far more interesting as applied to licenses or servitudes more generally. Based on hundreds of years of common law, one would imagine that all personal property, including patents, would require encumbrances to be publicly recorded for them to be enforceable on subsequent purchasers for value without actual notice. In fact, equitable servitudes on personal property were not enforceable at all at common law. As far as I can tell, patents present a unique exception to this history. For that reason I have wondered whether it is fair even to call patents property -- despite their being deemed so by statute. On my view, this is the most underappreciated obstacle to the emergence of a healthy market for patents. Lemley and Myhrvold suggested years ago a solution to the problem -- namely, of requiring the public disclosure of all assignments and licenses. That seems to have gone nowhere thanks to an incomplete understanding by current stakeholders of how such a transition would result in an entirely new market equilibrium, or at least to the general desire for incremental rather than radical changes to the status quo.

Confirmatory assignments are commonly used to record assignments in writing where the commercial terms of an assignment are to remain confidential. I cannot think of many instances where I would be happy to rely on a written confirmation of an unwritten assignment. It is my understanding that in most common law countries an assignment must be in writing for it to be legally effective, otherwise at best your unwritten assignment may only transfer an equitable interest in the relevant IP. A type of assignment document I have occasionally seen and used is the assignment that is both operative and confirmatory. In other words, "I confirm that I assigned, but if that assignment wasn't legally effective for any reason then I hereby assign". It isn't ideal, but sometimes it's the only way to fix a break in the chain of title when you really don’t think you can rely on that unwritten assignment.

3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? Yes, that is possible in certain jurisdictions. At the most you would need a date of assignment and particulars of the assignee and the assignor. The relevant forms necessary to record the assignment are prepared by the agents and signed on behalf of the assignee. Example, Singapore

Rob hit the nail on the head. They are used to simplify matters in circumstances where the parties may have been better to have signed short-form agreemnts. A party will often not want to disclose a document with all of the juicy commercial terms, so a confirmatory assignment may be used. A final (arguably erroneous) use may be where a party has, to settle a matter, assigned a CTM under cover of a letter or unilateral agreement signed only by the owner. In the case of a CTM, the assignment has to be signed by both parties to be valid. Therefore, whilst the mark may be assigned in the head of the previous owner, something more needs to be done to validly assign. Arguably the follow-up is not confirmatory in those circumstances, but I've seen the document that followed described as confirmatory.

Associated with the issue of confirmatory assignments is the issue of assignment documents with a purported "effective date" earlier than the date of execution of the document. In jurisdictions where rights in an application can only be assigned in writing, the writing requirement was then not fulfilled as at the "effective date". This may be particularly important in relation to priority claims.

I have seen such Confirmatory Assignments used as evidence supporting a transfer request before the EPO, but it wasn't my job to question them even though the whole procedure looked quite fishy to me. Once upon a time there was a nice little company A which got gobbled by company B. One year later, company B was in turn purchased lock, stock and barrel by company C. A, B and C were in three different countries. A's European representative kept prosecuting the EP cases, but only bothered to file a transfer request when a given application was just about to mature into a grant, providing in most cases a confirmatory assignment drafted by an US notary public as evidence. The document stated that A's IP was transferred to three entities Ca, Cb and Cc, which are all presumably 100% subsidiaries of C. I infer that the applications are jointly owned by all three companies. The assignment is signed by Ca, Cb and Cc's officers as well as the notary. The document couldn't have been signed by A's officers, since A did not exist anymore at that point. There is no mention whatsoever of company B either , so the document did not describe what actually happened, since A could never have dealt directly with C. The representative's cover letter only requests transfer to company Ca, leaving Cb and Cc out of the picture, and Ca is the only name entered in the EPO's register. I googled up a bit and I found out that B wrote in its ultimate annual that it now owned all of B's IP, and C later stated in its own annual report that B's IP was now located in yet another subsidiary Cd, different from Ca, Cb or Cc. In one case the Umschreibestelle questioned the confirmatory assignment in that in only bore the signature of one of the parties. The representative adamantly replied that the assignment should be taken at face value and that's it. The EPO did not insist, and took down the transfer - in Ca's name only. In one of the applications this examiner was bone-headed enough to be minded to consider a refusal, prompting the representative to file a "divisional" application in order to keep the show going. The weird thing was that the "divisional" was in A's name, even though it no longer existed for years. The new application was eventually abandoned, so all the interesting questions which arose did not need to be answered. From the preceding, I think I'd start kicking and yelling about who actually owns a patent (and thus entitled to initiate action) if I were ever dragged before court in an infringement action where a confirmatory assignment was involved. The standard for proving a transfer of rights appears to be much lower as to the right to transfer of an opposition. A confirmatory assignment may appear a practical shortcut, but it could be a false saving. As to the argument that a confirmatory assignment can keep details secret, I don't think they're worth the risk either. I've seen IP sale contracts accepted as evidence for a transfer before the EPO where more black ink was poured to obscure passages than the CIA ever used when declassifying a document. BTW, one of these contracts involved yet another of C's subsidiries transferring its IP to numbered entities conveniently located in tax flexible territories.

Thanks for all of your great comments. In one off-site communication on the topic yesterday, I suggested that confirmatory assignments are among the "dirty little secrets" of IP practice. She wrote back that in fact they are the "dity little not-so-secrets" of IP. I suspect that we are both right.

Something that does not appear to be widely appreciated is that the box for the date of agreement on EPO Form 1002 is provided for the convenience of the applicant only, there being no requirement in the EPC to provide a date. I have often filed forms with no date where the information was not available, and no objection has ever been raised. I have only seen this explicitly stated in the answer to question 80 in Dr. Günter Gall's classic book for EQE candidates "European & International patent applications: questions and answers" [ISBN 0-85121-555-6; 1989 edition]. Dr Günter Gall was a Director of the EPO and evidently wrote with authority. I have had more knowledgeable inventors query the appropriateness of signing any sort of assignment of rights that he doesn't own because the invention belongs to the employer by virtue of UK law, and have then had to explain the USA [for example] doesn't recognise this aspect of UK law. Such assignments made in respect of a first filing are certainly useful when subsequently filing in the USA if the inventor is no longer contactable or become uncooperative, eg due to imminent redundancy.

Anonymous' knowledgeable inventors have a point, and this has always been my rationale for obtaining confirmatory assignments. It must surely be a fundamental principle that one cannot assign what one does not own, so a written assignment from an employee to an employer that already owns the invention by terms of a contract of employment must surely be void. The problem is not solved by writing the employment contract in such a way as to place the employee under an obligation to assign, because a subsequent assignment to another party, while being a breach of contract, will not necessarily enable the invention to be reclaimed by the employer (see, eg Stanford v Roche 583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As I understand it, the US law relating to employee inventions is basically the common law. The issue is not that the USPTO will not recognise that the employer owns the invention, rather it is the specific requirement that the inventor assign the rights reflected in the particular patent application, ie that a suitable assignment cannot be completed until the inventor has the actual filed specification and claims before her. A general assignment of the invention, and all notional future rights, will not suffice for this purpose. However, an assignment of a PCT application designating the US is fine (although it may take a little effort to persuade the USPTO to accept a document that is not in its standard form). An unavailable or uncooperative inventor remains problematic even if you have a suitable assignment document, because the USPTO cannot accept the filed application until it has an inventor's declaration, or a petition has been granted to allow the application to be accepted without the signed declaration. Though not a US attorney, for my sins I have found myself with clients in this situation, and it can be a lot of work to resolve.

"This and the related topic of failure to agree or document assignment of IPRs arise all too frequently. I have been faced with the challenge of "I paid, so I own" throughout my career. Here are 10 thoughts on this topic: 1. No one should believe that the law will come to their rescue if they do not document a written assignment and have it signed by the assignor and the assignee. 2. Assignments of IPRs are a perfect example of lack of global harmonisation. There is huge discrepancy between national laws as to what formalities are required - few require more than a written assignment signed by both parties. 3. The greatest density of disputes is between consultants and the corporations who hire them. The expectation is that IPRs in the "work product" automatically transfer. Big mistake. 4. English law enjoys equity, and can be persuaded to find an intention to assign (aka an equitable assignment). Hoping for this result is a lottery. In other parts of Europe, the odds are worse. 5. The position is not as random within an employee/employer relationship, because generally the first owner is the employer. However, at the edges ("course of employment") it is well worth documenting the position. In this context, do not assume that ownership is the end of the matter. Always think about attribution issues (such as moral rights) and economic reward (for exceptional contribution). 6. Failure to document the IPR position is statistically likely to create a significant commercial issue downstream. I have personally seen IPOs delayed, joint ventures stall and tens of disputes that frustrate and delay commercial exploitation. 7. The consolation prize in an ownership dispute is typically a licence. Within this one word, is a world of pain as the parties debate scope (field of use), term (for a project to perpetual), ambit (exclusive to non-exclusive), not to mention royalty. So whilst ownership is undoubtedly first place, bottom of the class will not get much at all. 8. Banks and investors still struggle to understand and value IPRs in the same way as tangible assets such as property and stock, so they scare easily. If chain of title and ownership is not clear, expect them to have significant concerns in all other areas such as validity and infringement. 9. Joint ownership looks like a good compromise. Normally it isn't. There is no global uniformity on the rights conferred on joint owners - and even within a jurisdiction it's different between the various IPRs. 10. Which means that I'm normally just so relieved to receive a confirmatory assignment, that I seldom have the energy to think about Neil's 10 questions - but now I will!"

Many interesting comments on assignments. Here is a further related issue, perhaps basic compared to a confirmatory assignment under the original fact pattern. Assume the inventor has executed an assignment to her employer for a US provisional patent application that includes assignment of all later applications, using standard language regarding assigning international applications, US, non-US applications. The assignment properly assigns the right to claim priority. Then a PCT application is timely filed that claims priority to this provisional. The PCT application includes new disclosure in the specification, including new examples, and new claims. Is a second assignment needed or does the assignment of the provisional suffice? For all jurisdictions? If a new assignment is needed, how is it worded to avoid the issue of 're-assigning' what has already been assigned in the provisional assignment? Seems one can only assign rights one has not already assigned away.

In answer to the last comment, yes, a new assignment is needed. An assignment has to relate to an invention, and if that invention is new, it cannot have been previously assigned. Equitably, yes, but then we argue over whether the new invention is actually covered.

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment. It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow. Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!

How many page-views has the IPKat received?

Not just any old ipkat ....

Get the Kat in your Inbox!

The kat that tweets current followers: 22.8k.

Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn

Follow the IPKat on Facebook

Follow the ipkat on reddit.

The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days

Search This Blog

Blog archive.

• ►  May 2024 (18)
• ►  April 2024 (40)
• ►  March 2024 (38)
• ►  February 2024 (37)
• ►  January 2024 (40)
• ►  December 2023 (48)
• ►  November 2023 (40)
• ►  October 2023 (39)
• ►  September 2023 (39)
• ►  August 2023 (36)
• ►  July 2023 (37)
• ►  June 2023 (40)
• ►  May 2023 (46)
• ►  April 2023 (44)
• ►  March 2023 (34)
• ►  February 2023 (39)
• ►  January 2023 (36)
• ►  December 2022 (30)
• ►  November 2022 (35)
• ►  October 2022 (35)
• ►  September 2022 (34)
• ►  August 2022 (24)
• ►  July 2022 (21)
• ►  June 2022 (24)
• ►  May 2022 (24)
• ►  April 2022 (26)
• ►  March 2022 (26)
• ►  February 2022 (39)
• ►  January 2022 (42)
• ►  December 2021 (40)
• ►  November 2021 (40)
• ►  October 2021 (34)
• ►  September 2021 (37)
• ►  August 2021 (36)
• ►  July 2021 (39)
• ►  June 2021 (25)
• ►  May 2021 (40)
• ►  April 2021 (35)
• ►  March 2021 (36)
• ►  February 2021 (28)
• ►  January 2021 (41)
• ►  December 2020 (47)
• ►  November 2020 (37)
• ►  October 2020 (40)
• ►  September 2020 (42)
• ►  August 2020 (44)
• ►  July 2020 (56)
• ►  June 2020 (48)
• ►  May 2020 (50)
• ►  April 2020 (52)
• ►  March 2020 (58)
• ►  February 2020 (54)
• ►  January 2020 (62)
• ►  December 2019 (45)
• ►  November 2019 (60)
• ►  October 2019 (66)
• ►  September 2019 (58)
• ►  August 2019 (54)
• ►  July 2019 (60)
• ►  June 2019 (60)
• ►  May 2019 (66)
• ►  April 2019 (74)
• ►  March 2019 (67)
• ►  February 2019 (69)
• ►  January 2019 (68)
• ►  December 2018 (50)
• ►  November 2018 (42)
• ►  October 2018 (47)
• ►  September 2018 (31)
• ►  August 2018 (29)
• ►  July 2018 (28)
• ►  June 2018 (37)
• ►  May 2018 (44)
• ►  April 2018 (44)
• ►  March 2018 (60)
• ►  February 2018 (58)
• ►  January 2018 (54)
• ►  December 2017 (44)
• ►  November 2017 (61)
• ►  October 2017 (68)
• ►  September 2017 (38)
• ►  August 2017 (30)
• ►  July 2017 (57)
• ►  June 2017 (62)
• ►  May 2017 (57)
• ►  April 2017 (53)
• ►  March 2017 (53)
• ►  February 2017 (41)
• ►  January 2017 (35)
• ►  December 2016 (55)
• ►  November 2016 (45)
• ►  October 2016 (44)
• ►  September 2016 (61)
• ►  August 2016 (33)
• ►  July 2016 (38)
• ►  June 2016 (47)
• ►  May 2016 (62)
• ►  April 2016 (62)
• ►  March 2016 (63)
• ►  February 2016 (41)
• ►  January 2016 (47)
• ►  December 2015 (57)
• ►  November 2015 (76)
• ►  October 2015 (71)
• ►  September 2015 (60)
• ►  August 2015 (69)
• ►  July 2015 (74)
• ►  June 2015 (72)
• ►  May 2015 (67)
• ►  April 2015 (65)
• ►  March 2015 (93)
• ►  February 2015 (73)
• ►  January 2015 (87)
• ►  December 2014 (89)
• ►  November 2014 (58)
• ►  October 2014 (73)
• ►  September 2014 (78)
• ►  August 2014 (68)
• ►  July 2014 (73)
• ►  June 2014 (76)
• ►  May 2014 (72)
• ►  April 2014 (69)
• ►  March 2014 (67)
• ►  February 2014 (78)
• ►  January 2014 (78)
• ►  December 2013 (64)
• ►  November 2013 (78)
• ►  October 2013 (72)
• ►  September 2013 (54)
• ►  August 2013 (57)
• ►  July 2013 (72)
• ►  June 2013 (56)
• ►  May 2013 (63)
• ►  April 2013 (73)
• ►  March 2013 (62)
• ►  February 2013 (55)
• ►  January 2013 (62)
• ►  December 2012 (48)
• ►  November 2012 (77)
• ►  October 2012 (69)
• ►  September 2012 (65)
• ►  August 2012 (56)
• ►  July 2012 (70)
• ►  June 2012 (68)
• ►  May 2012 (61)
• ►  April 2012 (70)
• ►  March 2012 (78)
• ►  February 2012 (81)
• ►  January 2012 (81)
• ►  December 2011 (66)
• ►  November 2011 (69)
• ►  October 2011 (62)
• ►  September 2011 (43)
• ►  August 2011 (61)
• ►  July 2011 (68)
• ►  June 2011 (61)
• ►  May 2011 (63)
• ►  April 2011 (68)
• ►  March 2011 (76)
• ►  February 2011 (66)
• ►  January 2011 (64)
• ►  December 2010 (74)
• ►  November 2010 (60)
• ►  October 2010 (67)
• ►  September 2010 (60)
• ►  August 2010 (64)
• Invisible goods
• Breaking news: Vodkat appeal dismissed
• Friday fantasies
• Inbev loses Budweiser CTM appeal
• Schlumberger v EMGS: A Non-Obvious Marriage of Skills
• A press-ing problem
• Wednesday whimsies
• A blueprint to nurture the creatives: it takes Bra...
• The definite Article?
• If you think software patents are a pain, try soft...
• Do poor people like different patents to rich people?
• Monday miscellany
• Letter from AmeriKat - Hot News - too hot to handle?
• Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave?
• The bare facts and the Naked truth
• EPO: hearings in "broccoli and tomato cases"
• Never mind the golden rabbits, what about the Gold...
• New German court to try chocolate rabbit disputes
• This bunny (litigation) never dies
• Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby (Justice St...
• Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice St...
• EPO: English version of notice concerning communic...
• Some culinary IP news....
• Another referral to the EBO: Allowability of discl...
• All threats, no action ...
• New referral to the EBO: until when can a correcti...
• The Branding Summer of our Content and Discontent
• Azzurri take aim at "creaking" patent system
• DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too
• Added matter, intermediate generalisation and a go...
• Becker match goes to a fifth set
• Two outstanding competitions: a Kat apologises
• England's new shirt sponsors?
• When a School Boy's Trick Meets Strangers in a Tra...
• Portakabin ruling: a bad result for trade mark own...
• An IP system for the 21st Century: Gurry speaks
• Odd Couple challenge Digital Economy Act
• "You say vuvuzela, I say lepatata ..."
• Cracking Ideas and a day to remember
• Importing non-UK decoders into the EU: a multiplic...
• Monsanto: court makes a meal of soya ruling
• A PET aversion? Biorenewable monomers take centre ...
• EPO implicated in Golden Balls dispute
• Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
• Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
• Is rebranding the key to reversing BlackBerry's fo...
• Old woman rebranded in wonder makeover
• The EQE "Pre-Exam" - Who Needs It?
• Heartache for heartburn drugmaker, though court sw...
• A map, a copyright dispute and the Bundesverfassun...
• ►  June 2010 (57)
• ►  May 2010 (61)
• ►  April 2010 (75)
• ►  March 2010 (63)
• ►  February 2010 (50)
• ►  January 2010 (54)
• ►  December 2009 (50)
• ►  November 2009 (70)
• ►  October 2009 (58)
• ►  September 2009 (49)
• ►  August 2009 (55)
• ►  July 2009 (59)
• ►  June 2009 (57)
• ►  May 2009 (40)
• ►  April 2009 (51)
• ►  March 2009 (61)
• ►  February 2009 (56)
• ►  January 2009 (60)
• ►  December 2008 (53)
• ►  November 2008 (66)
• ►  October 2008 (60)
• ►  September 2008 (52)
• ►  August 2008 (56)
• ►  July 2008 (60)
• ►  June 2008 (74)
• ►  May 2008 (78)
• ►  April 2008 (72)
• ►  March 2008 (70)
• ►  February 2008 (59)
• ►  January 2008 (75)
• ►  December 2007 (55)
• ►  November 2007 (71)
• ►  October 2007 (64)
• ►  September 2007 (54)
• ►  August 2007 (51)
• ►  July 2007 (77)
• ►  June 2007 (75)
• ►  May 2007 (76)
• ►  April 2007 (62)
• ►  March 2007 (92)
• ►  February 2007 (84)
• ►  January 2007 (83)
• ►  December 2006 (59)
• ►  November 2006 (74)
• ►  October 2006 (57)
• ►  September 2006 (52)
• ►  August 2006 (53)
• ►  July 2006 (61)
• ►  June 2006 (60)
• ►  May 2006 (66)
• ►  April 2006 (64)
• ►  March 2006 (83)
• ►  February 2006 (59)
• ►  January 2006 (78)
• ►  December 2005 (65)
• ►  November 2005 (68)
• ►  October 2005 (56)
• ►  September 2005 (68)
• ►  August 2005 (70)
• ►  July 2005 (74)
• ►  June 2005 (90)
• ►  May 2005 (79)
• ►  April 2005 (84)
• ►  March 2005 (63)
• ►  February 2005 (70)
• ►  January 2005 (83)
• ►  December 2004 (81)
• ►  November 2004 (95)
• ►  October 2004 (81)
• ►  September 2004 (66)
• ►  August 2004 (43)
• ►  July 2004 (63)
• ►  June 2004 (49)
• ►  May 2004 (49)
• ►  April 2004 (46)
• ►  March 2004 (61)
• ►  February 2004 (40)
• ►  January 2004 (59)
• ►  December 2003 (57)
• ►  November 2003 (62)
• ►  October 2003 (52)
• ►  September 2003 (58)
• ►  August 2003 (73)
• ►  July 2003 (40)

Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence

Subscribe to the ipkat's posts by email here, feed me ipkat.

Has the Kat got your tongue?

The ipkat's cousins: some ip-friendly blogs for you, out for the count....

IP Assignments: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law

March 22, 2023 By John DiGiacomo

Like any valuable business asset, patents, trademarks and copyrights can be sold, assigned and licensed. Indeed, assignment and licensing is common with respect to intellectual property. In legal terms, an “assignment” is a transfer of ownership, either full ownership or partial. In basic terms, a nunc pro tunc is a type of assignment that is backdated. Nunc pro tunc is Latin meaning “now for then.”A nunc pro tunc assignment will be signed on a particular date, but parties will deem the assignment to have been granted on some earlier date.

For a Trademark registered on May 1, 2017, an example of how a nunc pro tunc assignment provision might look like this:

Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, ASSIGNOR agrees that ASSIGNOR hereby assigned unto ASSIGNEE nunc pro tunc effective as of October 1, 2020, all right, title and interest in and to the May 1, 2017 trademark described herein … In testimony whereof, ASSIGNOR, has signed this instrument this 1st day of October 2020.”

In this example, the assignment is deemed to have been granted on May 1, 2017, but has an effective date of October 1, 2020.

In business terms, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used where past IP assignments are made verbally or via conduct. In the rush to get IP “to market,” it is not uncommon for assignments to be granted, but not reduced to writing. Nunc pro tunc assignments are also commonly used to bridge gaps in the “chain of title” for IP. This can happen when corporations and/or assets are sold, but proper paperwork is missing. Purchasers believe that they have ownership to certain patents, trademarks, or copyrights, but the missing documents cause “gaps” in the chain of title. These “gaps” can be cured by obtaining a nunc pro tunc assignment from the original owner of the IP. In the same manner, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used as part of settlements for litigation involving claims of patent, trademark and/or copyright infringement or disputes over ownership

For litigation purposes, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used to give a party legal standing to initiate litigation. To have “standing” to initiate litigation, a party must have some ownership interest in the patent, trademark or copyright. However, for courts, “standing” is based on the effective date of the assignment, not the earlier date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment.

However, for other purposes, the earlier assignment date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment is the credited date. For example, an assignment of a registered trademark must be recorded with the US Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). This is done electronically. The assignment must be uploaded along with the proper recordation form and applicable fee. For the USPTO, the trademark assignment is based on the date designated for the assignment rather than the date of execution of the nunc pro tunc assignment.

So, when should you use a nunc pro tunc assignment for a trademark? The most common situations include:

• When a trademark was previously assigned but not recorded – Sometimes, an assignment of trademark ownership may occur but the paperwork is not properly filed or recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this case, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct the oversight and retroactively assign the trademark to the new owner.
• When the original assignment was not effective – A nunc pro tunc assignment can also be used to correct a defective assignment. For example, if the original assignment was not properly executed or lacked essential terms, the nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct those issues and make the assignment retroactively effective.
• When there is a change in business structure – A nunc pro tunc assignment may be necessary when there is a change in the business structure of the trademark owner, such as a merger or acquisition. In this case, the new owner may need to retroactively assign the trademark to themselves to ensure that they have proper ownership and control over the trademark.
• When there is a dispute over ownership – If there is a dispute over the ownership of a trademark, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to resolve the issue. This can occur when multiple parties claim ownership of a trademark, or when there is confusion over who actually owns the trademark.
• When the trademark was abandoned – In some cases, a trademark may have been abandoned by the previous owner. If this occurs, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to assign ownership to the new owner retroactively. However, it is important to note that there are strict time limits for filing a nunc pro tunc assignment in these cases.

It is important to note that a nunc pro tunc assignment should only be used when there is a genuine need to correct an error or oversight in the assignment of a trademark ownership. It is not a tool to be used to cover up illegal or unethical behavior.

In addition, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be a complex legal process that requires the assistance of an experienced trademark attorney. The attorney can help ensure that the assignment is executed properly and in compliance with all legal requirements.

Contact Revision Legal

For more information, contact the IP and  business lawyers at Revision Legal at 231-714-0100.

Put Revision Legal on your side

Trademark Assignment

• For a free consultation, please tell us your issue: (application, infringement, litigation, etc.) *
• Comments This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
• AS SEEN IN:

PRACTICE AREAS

• Intellectual Property Litigation
• Trademark Litigation
• Trademark Infringement
• Trademark Registration
• Copyright Litigation
• Copyright Infringement
• Copyright Registration
• Patent Litigation
• Patent Infringement
• Patent Registration

Home » Trademark Assignment

A trademark assignment transfers all rights in a trademark to another party.  Registering trademarks with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) offers several rights, and one of those is the ability to record a trademark assignment.

When considering the transfer of any trademark though, it’s important for both parties to have a sound understanding of the legal implications. Failure to properly execute an assignment could result in disagreements over ownership, exposure to litigation, and other adverse outcomes.

What is a Trademark Assignment?

A trademark assignment transfer all rights, title and interest in a trademark to the recipient.  Around 20 percent of trademarks registered with the USPTO will at some point be transferred in this manner. Once complete, the original owner no longer has a legal interest in the trademark. Both parties may benefit from these agreements since the assignor typically receives a payment and the assignee takes control of a valuable piece of intellectual property.

If you’ve secured trademark registration from the USPTO, you’ll need to record the assignment. This will provide public notice regarding the transfer of ownership. This should be done within three months following the assignment date. This creates prima facie evidence of the transfer. The USPTO does not accept Asset Purchase Agreements as evidence of an assignment.

Trademark Assignment Agreement

When ownership of a trademark is being transferred, it’s important to have a written trademark assignment agreement.  A properly crafted contract can protect all parties involved. The USPTO will also not consider agreements to transfer trademarks valid unless they’re in writing.

The following qualifications should be met at a minimum:

• All involved parties – the assignor and assignee – should be identified.
• The trademark being assigned should be identified along with relevant ownership information (e.g. registration number).
• Consideration must be listed (i.e. what each party is receiving).
• List the effective date of the transfer.
• Contract must be duly executed.
• Trademark goodwill must be specifically transfered.

These minimum requirements will typically ensure that the transfer assignment agreement is valid and holds up in court. The onus of creating a valid contract is on the assignor and assignee. Including information regarding payment of the transfer fee and how disputes between the two parties will be handled is also recommended.

Trademark Goodwill

Trademarks are valuable pieces of intellectual property, and this value comes from their inherent goodwill. Trademark goodwill is the positive associations and feelings that the trademark creates in the consuming public.  It is an intangible asset that is linked to the consumer recognition of a brand.

Any trademark assignment must explicitly state that all goodwill is also being transferred. Each transfer is unique and could result in differences in a final contract, but every valid assignment must contain language signifying transference of goodwill. The agreement will otherwise be viewed as an “assignment in gross” and could cause the loss of trademark rights.

Assignments involving both common law trademarks and those registered with the USPTO must include a transfer of trademark goodwill. This is what inherently makes a brand identifier valuable. The importance of this element of assignment relates to consumer trust.  The source of a product/service should match what a consumer was led to believe.

Reasons for Trademark Assignments

Even though a trademark is seen as one of the most valuable assets a business can own, there are a variety of reasons why a trademark assignment may be desired. These are just a few of the reasons behind trademark assignments:

• Business changes : An assignment may be required if a business owner forms a new entity or dissolves an old one.
• Sale of business : A trademark owner may decide to focus on a different business or retire.
• Manufacturing or Marketing costs : A trademark may become more valuable to another party due to manufacturing or marketing costs.

There are many reasons why a brand owner may choose to assign their trademark to a third party. These transfers are permanent when properly executed. This makes it important for registrants to understand all implications. There are other options available – such as licensing agreements, discussed further below – if a trademark owner wants to maintain some control over the trademark.

Before Taking Ownership

Most of the focus on trademark assignments rests on assignors, but those taking ownership of a trademark have many considerations as well. In addition to the rights they’re gaining through the transfer of ownership, they’re also taking on the risks and responsibilities of owning a trademark. Assignees should consider all the following concerns before finalizing an agreement:

• Reputation of brand : Purchasing a trademark is essentially purchasing the reputation of a brand. If consumers do not view a trademark favorably, you’ll have a difficult time changing their minds.
• Confirm ownership : Performing a thorough trademark search prior to entering an agreement is essential. This will confirm ownership and give you an idea of whether trademark disputes may arise in the future.
• Intent-to-use identifiers : Trademark assignment involving Intent-to-Use Trademarks must meet specific criteria. If an identifier is not yet in commercial use, the assignment must be to a business successor.
• Potential disputes of ownership : If proper documentation is not recorded with the USPTO, the assignment could be deemed invalid.
• Third-party disputes : Failure to properly transfer ownership can also leave the assignee open to claims of trademark infringement from third parties.
• Transfer of trademark goodwill : Always make sure trademark goodwill is explicitly transferred in the assignment agreement.

The moral here is to always perform due diligence before taking ownership of another party’s trademark.

Trademark Assignment with the USPTO

To ensure appropriate transfer of ownership, a trademark assignment must be recorded with the USPTO. This is done through the Electronic Trademark Assignment System. In addition to uploading your Transfer Assignment Agreement, you must complete an online form and pay the respective fees. Failure to do so will harm assignees in future litigation and prevent them from renewing the trademark .

When filing a trademark assignment with the USPTO it must be accompanied by a Recordation Form Cover Sheet. This lists the basic required information for transferal. The USPTO typically processes assignments within a month or two and then they become public record.

Nunc Pro Tunc Trademark Assignment

Not all assignments of trademark rights are immediately put into writing. This creates unnecessary risks for both parties. In these situations, a nunc pro tunc trademark assignment can retroactively document the transfer of ownership. Nunc pro tunc is Latin for “now for then,” so it serves as evidence of when an oral agreement was reached between the assignor and assignee without being put in writing.

This written document can be filed with the USPTO, but unlike a traditional assignment, it’s effective from the date of oral assignment rather than the date of execution.  Documenting assignments after the fact is definitely not a best practice and can lead to many issues.  It is however the only way to try to fix an error that has occurred in the past.

Trademark Licensing

Assigning ownership of a trademark isn’t necessary to grant certain rights. Trademark licensing can give third parties permission, for instance, to use a trademark without the original owner relinquishing rights. This is the type of business relationship that exists for more than 900,000 franchised business establishments across the country.

The owners of trademark registrations typically strive to prevent outside parties from using their intellectual property. By licensing use to certain brands or individuals, though, they garner a variety of benefits. These may include gaining expertise, assistance in shouldering the burden of a growing business, increased brand recognition, creation of a passive revenue source, and expansion into new markets.

The three basic types of trademark licensing agreements are exclusive, sole and non-exclusive.  An exclusive license means that the licensee has the exclusive ability to sell the goods or services at issue.  A sole license means that the licensee has the right the sell the goods or services but the right is shared with the licensor.  A non-exclusive license means that the licensor retains the right to license the trademark to other third parties and continue to sell the goods or services themselves.

Licensing agreements should always be in writing and preferably they should be notarized.  Failing to have a license agreement in writing will lead to many issues if trademark litigation or other disputes arise. Having the agreement notarized will also reduce the likelihood of disputes over the validity of the license.

The agreements used for trademark licensing and assignment have some similarities, but there are important distinctions. Licensing documents, for example, should include quality control provisions, the type of license granted, the effective dates of the license, and any specifications regarding the renewal of the agreement. These terms are typically not part of assignments.

If you are considering a trademark assignment, please do not hesitate to contact us with any issues or questions that you may have.

Happy Clients:

We serve the following localities: Los Angeles County, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Malibu, Manhattan Beach, North Hollywood, Pacific Palisades, Redondo Beach, Whittier, Orange County, Laguna Niguel, Lake Forest, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, Irvine, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Ana, San Diego County, Carlsbad, Encinitas, La Jolla, Oceanside, and San Diego.

16870 West Bernardo Drive, Suite 400 San Diego, California 92127

Phone: (858) 487-9300 Click to Contact us

Orange County

2030 main street, suite 1300 irvine, california 92614.

Phone: (949) 474-9330 Click to Contact us

Los Angeles

12121 wilshire boulevard, suite 810 los angeles, california 90025.

Phone: (310) 656-3900 Click to Contact us

• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Scholarship

©2018 – Mandour & Associates, APC – All Rights Reserved Aggressive Intellectual Property Litigators® – Trademark Attorneys – Patent Lawyers – Copyright Attorneys

• Professionals

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

https://www.nist.gov/iedison/iedison-agency-user-guide/patent-reports/reviewing-confirmatory-license

Reviewing a Confirmatory License

To review a Confirmatory License (CL), complete the following steps:

• Open the Patent Report with the CL awaiting acceptance
• Download and review the Confirmatory License
• Approve or reject the Confirmatory License

1. Open the Patent Report with the CL awaiting acceptance

When a Confirmatory License is awaiting review, you'll receive an Alert Notification on your Dashboard. Click on the Patent Docket number to open the Patent Record.

2. Download and review the Confirmatory License

Click on the "Click Here to Download" link to save the Confirmatory License to a local directory. Review the document to ensure all criteria are met.

CL Review Guidance

When reviewing a CL, the agency should look for the following:

• The information (application and/or patent number, filing date, etc.) for the CL uploaded matches the information listed in iEdison for this application/patent.  
• Inventors and an Invention Title are present on the CL. This information should match what is in iEdison, but an exact match is not required as inventors and the title may change throughout patent prosecution.
• All grants/contracts (in correct format as listed in iEdison) reported in iEdison are listed in the CL and vice versa. Please be sure to check the grants/contracts listed for non-primary funding agencies as well.  
• If a CL is uploaded that was NOT generated out of iEdison, check the language to the iEdison template to ensure that the language of the uploaded license is consistent with the template.
• The Organization and Signatory information fields are completed.
• The CL is dated and signed. Official electronic signatures are generally accepted, though simply putting their name through slashes ("/J. Doe/") is generally not accepted.  
• The date on the CL uploaded matched the Execution Date entered into iEdison. This is unique to the new system and previously uploaded CLs may not have an Execution Date entered in iEdison .

3. Accept or reject the Confirmatory License

If the CL meets all criteria, click the "Accept" button.

A notification will be sent to the awardee informing them of the acceptance.

If the CL fails to meet any of the criteria, click the "Reject" button. A popup window will require you to check all reasons for the rejection including any comments. (A list of reasons for rejection with explanations are provided in the next section.)

It's recommended you also include a written explanation in the "Comments" box so the organization fully understands how to remedy the issue.

Once you have selected the reason for the rejection, click the "Reject" button on the popup window to confirm.

A notification will be sent to the awardee that their confirmatory license was rejected.  The rejection reason you selected and your comments will be displayed in the patent record.

Confirmatory License Rejection Reasons:

An official website of the United States government Here’s how you know keyboard_arrow_down

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Jump to main content

Join us tomorrow: Learn about the latest notices of proposed rulemaking before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Published on: 05/15/2024 10:37 AM

Additional information about this page