INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TCI CABLEVISION OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Defendant-Appellant., 248 F.3d 1333

Summary

Defendant argued, inter alia, that as an exclusive licensee having fewer than all substantial rights in the '202 patent, plaintiff lacked U.S. Const. art. III standing to bring suit in its own name and could not create standing, and thus jurisdiction, by simply joining the assignee rather than by dismissing the case and refiling jointly with the assignee. Therefore, defendant asserted that the district court judge improperly allowed plaintiff to amend its complaint to add the assignee of the '202 patent as a party plaintiff. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's dismissals. The appellate court observed that jurisdiction was proper and did not require refiling because the principle requiring that a patent owner be joined, either voluntarily or involuntarily, in any infringement suit brought by an exclusive licensee was prudential rather than constitutional. The appellate court reasoned that plaintiff, as an exclusive licensee of the '202 patent, possessed constitutional ...