Court is unpersuaded by champetry argument
LP Matthews, L.L.C. v. Bath & Body Works, Inc. et al., No. 04-1507-SLR, Oct. 19, 2006.
Robinson, J. Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to join a party are denied. Defendant BBW’s motion for summary judgment based on misassignment of the patent to the Greenspan Company rather than The Greenspan Corporation was denied.
The Greenspan Corporation, owner of the patent rights, assigned its rights to plaintiff, who refused to join Greenspan to the litigation. Defendant argued that Greenspan’s assignment, whereby plaintiff funded the litigation and would split any recovery with Greenspan, was champertous and void. Defendant also moved for summary judgment based on lack of standing due to an error in assigning the patent to The Greenspan Company rather than the Greenspan Corporation. The motion was denied based upon declarations filed which established that the parties’ intent was always to assign the patent to the Greenspan Corporation, noting that the Greenspan parties renounced any rights or claims.
