Tidwell

Superbrace, Inc. v. Tidwell

Good Law
124 Cal. App. 4th 388·2004 Cal. App. LEXIS 1984·2004 Daily Journal DAR 14103·21 Cal. Rptr. 3d 404·2004 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10388
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 23, 2004G033363California6,822 words

Opinion

Opinion

O'Leary, J.

There is a debate among federal and state courts as to whether state or federal common law should be applied to cases involving the transfer of patent license rights. In the case before us, Kelly Tidwell and Fran Cyrus (collectively Tidwell unless otherwise indicated) challenge the trial court’s application of state law in holding Robert and Barbara Gebauer could transfer their exclusive license to manufacture, market, and sell Tidwell’s patented inventions. After considering our Supreme Court’s ruling in Farmland Irrigation Co. v. Dopplmaier (1957) 48 Cal.2d 208 [ 308 P.2d 732 ] (Dopplmaier), and reviewing recent federal cases to the contrary, we affirm the trial court’s ruling. Applying state law, we conclude the license rights were not personal and therefore were assignable. Tidwell also challenges the court’s (1) order obligating Tidwell to protect the patents until the Gebauers obtain the patent titles; (2) order allowing the Gebauers to retain and sell (if they desire) their motor oil distribution rights; and (3) refusal to impose damages for patent infringement. On a finding Tidwell’s contentions lack merit, we affirm judgment.

I

Tidwell owns and operates several…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.