In Magnetar Technologies Corp., et al. v. Six Flags Theme Parks Inc., et al., C.A. No. 07-127-LPS-MPT (D. Del. Aug. 2, 2017), Chief Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge recommended the grant of Plaintiffs’ motion to correct inventorship, under Section 256, that was filed after the Court had ruled that the patents-in-suit were invalid, in part due to failure to name all inventors. The Court had thenentered judgment for Defendants and against Plaintiffs, also due to its findings of noninfringement. The Court’s rulings had been affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Defendants presented three arguments in opposition: the motion was futile as Plaintiffs lacked legal title to the interest in the invention held by the inventor they sought to add; Plaintiffs had no procedural vehicle through which to seek relief because final judgment had already been entered; and the motion was moot because the patent at issue had been found invalid for reasons in addition to incorrect inventorship. The Court rejected these arguments. As to futility, the Court concluded that Section 256 requires no showing of ownership in the patent on those seeking to invoke it. Id. at 7-8. As to the procedural vehicle for hearing the motion, the Court concluded that Section 256 itself sufficed. Id. at 9. It also concluded that the motion was proper because final judgment had not been entered “as to plaintiffs’ right to correct inventorship.” Id. Finally, as to mootness, the Court pointed to the fact that the outcome of the motion could impact Defendants’ attorney fee requests and would remove the invalidity of certain claims of the patent-in-suit. Id. at 10.
Having rejected these arguments, the Court then recommended that the motion to correct inventorship be granted. Id. at 11. In light of its rulings, the Court also recommended denial of Defendant’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with Plaintiffs’ motion. Id. at 12-13.
Delaware IP Law Blog 