U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit (on appeal from D. Del.) · US (Fed. Cir.) · 2022 · Decided; affirmed
Citation/Docket: No. 21-1555 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 4, 2022)
Posture: Accused infringer vs. funded patent owner, challenging standing
Funder(s) involved: Fortress Credit Co. LLC
Under a revenue-sharing agreement, Uniloc granted Fortress a license and an unfettered right to sublicense the asserted patents, triggered on default. Motorola argued that after default the patentee no longer held exclusionary rights sufficient for Article III standing, and the district court dismissed on that basis.
The Federal Circuit affirmed, holding Uniloc collaterally estopped from re-litigating the existence of the Fortress license and its standing consequences, because it had settled an earlier case without getting the adverse standing ruling vacated. The court noted but declined to decide whether granting a sublicensing right always destroys standing.
The fine print of a funding or revenue-sharing deal can quietly take away your right to sue at all. Before signing, have counsel confirm that no default remedy transfers rights a court would treat as the substance of ownership.
Matters like this one often turn on expert testimony, on valuation, industry custom and practice, legal ethics, or damages. The Institute partners with world-class expert witness referral companies for this purpose.
Compiled from public sources (court filings, published opinions, and secondary reporting) as part of the Institute's Phase 1 Dispute Library research. This is educational material, not legal advice; case citations should be independently verified before relied upon.