Schwendimann v. Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  • Case: 13-143    Document: 15     Page: 1   Filed: 04/26/2013
    NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    JODI A. SCHWENDIMANN (formerly known as Jodi
    A. Dalvey),
    Plaintiff-Respondent,
    v.
    ARKWRIGHT ADVANCED COATING, INC.,
    Defendant-Petitioner.
    ______________________
    Miscellaneous Docket No. 143
    ______________________
    On Petition for Permission to Appeal pursuant to
    28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) from the United States District Court
    for the District of Minnesota in No. 11-CV-0820, Judge
    Ann D. Montgomery.
    ______________________
    ON PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
    ______________________
    Before RADER, Chief Judge, DYK and WALLACH, Circuit
    Judges.
    RADER, Chief Judge.
    ORDER
    Case: 13-143   Document: 15     Page: 2    Filed: 04/26/2013
    2      JODI SCHWENDIMANN   v. ARKWRIGHT ADVANCED COATING
    Arkwright Advanced Coating, Inc. (“Arkwright”) peti-
    tions for permission to appeal the district court’s March
    19, 2012 and August 10, 2012 orders holding that Jodi A.
    Schwendimann had standing to bring her patent in-
    fringement claims. Schwendimann opposes.
    The document assigning U.S. Patent Application Se-
    rial No. 09/541,845 (“the ‘845 application”) to Schwend-
    imann is a hand-altered photocopy (“photocopy
    assignment”) of an earlier assignment transferring rights
    in a different patent application (“the ‘983 application”)
    from her former employer, Advanced Coating Technolo-
    gies, Inc. (“ACT”) to Schwendimann. The alteration on
    the photocopy assignment was made by Schwendimann’s
    counsel, who was also ACT’s counsel. Counsel altered the
    document by crossing out the “matter” portion of the
    “client-matter” number associated with the assignment of
    the ‘983 application and replacing it with the “matter”
    number associated with the ‘845 application assignment.
    The photocopy assignment was faxed to the United States
    Patent and Trademark Office with a cover sheet identify-
    ing it as an assignment of the ‘845 application from ACT
    to Schwendimann.
    In its March 19, 2012 order, the district court held
    that the photocopy assignment was a valid writing and
    that the irregularities therein did not preclude a finding
    that the document was a written instrument under
    35 U.S.C. § 261. In its August 10, 2012 order, the district
    court concluded that the photocopy assignment memorial-
    ized a valid agreement between ACT and Schwendimann
    to assign rights in the ‘845 patent. The court further held
    that while on its face, the photocopy assignment conveyed
    rights in the ‘983 application, not the ‘845 application,
    Schwendimann had shown she was entitled to refor-
    mation under Minnesota contract law.
    Arkwright moved for certification for interlocutory
    appeal, which the district court granted. The court certi-
    Case: 13-143      Document: 15      Page: 3   Filed: 04/26/2013
    JODI SCHWENDIMANN     v. ARKWRIGHT ADVANCED COATING       3
    fied the following question for interlocutory appeal under
    28 U.S.C. § 1292(b):
    Can a hand-altered photocopy of a prior,
    unrelated assignment satisfy the writing
    requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 261 for a differ-
    ent patent application and be reformed un-
    der state law to provide standing when a
    third party reading the hand-altered photo-
    copy would be unable to discern which pa-
    tent rights the parties intended to assign?
    Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), a district judge may certify
    for appeal an otherwise unappealable order when “of the
    opinion that such order involves a controlling question of
    law as to which there is substantial ground for difference
    of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order
    may materially advance the ultimate termination of the
    litigation.” 28 U.S.C. § 1296(b). Whether to accept an
    interlocutory appeal is a decision solely within our discre-
    tion. See In re Convertible Rowing Exerciser Patent
    Litigation, 
    903 F.2d 822
     (Fed. Cir. 1990).
    Based on the arguments in the motions papers, we
    decline to entertain this interlocutory appeal.
    Upon consideration thereof,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
    FOR THE COURT
    /s/ Jan Horbaly
    Jan Horbaly
    Clerk
    s25
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-143

Judges: Rader, Dyk, Wallach

Filed Date: 4/26/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024