## Facts

- At Home Corp. entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and a court-approved liquidation plan divided its assets and litigation rights among multiple trusts.
- The At Home Liquidating Trust (AHLT) received legal title to certain intellectual property, including U.S. Patent No. 6,122,647, and retained substantive patent ownership rights (including licensing).
- The General Unsecured Creditors’ Liquidating Trust (GUCLT) received specified “estate litigation” rights, including authority to pursue infringement claims and receive any litigation recovery for creditors.
- GUCLT’s trustee sued Microsoft in federal district court alleging infringement of several claims of the ’647 patent by Microsoft products.
- Microsoft argued GUCLT lacked standing because it held no exclusionary rights in the patent, and moved for summary judgment of noninfringement.
- The district court rejected Microsoft’s standing argument, reached the merits, and granted summary judgment of noninfringement.
- GUCLT appealed the noninfringement judgment; Microsoft cross-appealed the standing ruling.

## Issues

1. Whether a trust holding only a contractual right to sue for patent infringement and to receive proceeds, but no patent exclusionary rights, has Article III standing to sue for infringement.
2. Whether any standing defect could be cured by joining (or including) the patent title holder as a party when the plaintiff itself lacks injury in fact.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s conclusion that GUCLT had standing.
- The court held GUCLT lacked Article III standing because it possessed no exclusionary rights in the ’647 patent and therefore suffered no legally cognizable injury from infringement.
- The court vacated the summary judgment of noninfringement because the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to decide the merits.
- The court rejected the argument that joinder of the patent title holder could cure the absence of injury in fact for a plaintiff that holds only a bare right to sue.

## Legal Principles

- Patent infringement standing requires Article III injury in fact, which in patent cases is tied to invasion of legally protected exclusionary rights under the Patent Act.
- The right to sue for patent infringement is not a freestanding entitlement; it flows from ownership or holding of exclusionary patent rights (e.g., rights to make, use, sell, offer to sell, or license).
- A party with “all substantial rights” may sue as an effective patentee; an exclusive licensee with sufficient exclusionary rights may sue, typically with the patentee joined; a party with only a nonexclusive or purely economic interest lacks standing.
- Joinder rules cannot create constitutional standing; each plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction must independently satisfy injury in fact.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit held that separating a patent’s exclusionary rights from a contractual right to sue leaves the would-be plaintiff without Article III standing, requiring vacatur of any merits judgment entered without jurisdiction.


Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., 499 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2007)