Global rule-based intelligence for chinese decision-making。
Editor-in-chief shawn
I'm the editor, chen jing, on duty editor, ma yunshu, von wanning
Cover depth / cover story
Cafc explains the distinction between constitutional and legal standing
Core events
For a long time, there has been a core dispute in united states patent proceedings, and if patents have been authorized to third parties, put in patent pools, transferred to operating entities, or split proceeds, will the original rights holder still be eligible to sue? In the past, a number of defendants have made use of “defeasances” to directly request the dismissal of the case, while cafc has made it clear this time that the question of “whether actual harm has been done” is not the same as that of “the existence of all legal rights”。
The united states court of appeals for the federal circuit (cafc) has recently made a clear distinction between constitutional standing (co.) in the case of a. L. M. Holding company, ergon asphalt & emulsions, inc. V. Zydex industries private ltd., zydex incI'm not sure what i'm talking about. The court emphasized that even if patent rights had already been partially authorized, divided or commercialized, the original rights holder might still have standing to sue。
Depth interpretation
There is a long-standing factual contradiction in the united states patent case: modern patent commercialization structures are becoming increasingly complex, but courts have long followed the traditional ownership logic of “who is entitled to sue”. Particularly after patents have been authorized, divided, placed in a patent pool or managed by an operating entity, defendants tend to claim that the original rights holder has been disqualified and try to close the case directly with procedural issues。
Cafc this time makes a clear distinction between eligibility at the “constitutional level” and “competence in the sense of patent law”. The former concerned whether the plaintiff had suffered real harm as a result of the infringement, while the latter concerned whether it was the proper subject of the suit as defined by law. The court is in fact clarifying that, even if a patent right has been partially authorized or commercialized, its standing will not ipso facto disappear as long as the original holder retains a part of the core interest and control。
A large number of current patents are not held in their entirety by a single subject, but rather have complex structures such as cross-authorization, separation of proceeds, and management of operating entities. If traditional “complete ownership” continues to be the sole criterion, many modern proprietary commercial arrangements will face continuing uncertainty。
Litigation and gaming / litigation & strategy
01 versata v. Ford: cafc restores versata's substantial compensation
Case: the united states federal circuit court of appeals rendered an important judgement in respect of the commercial secrecy and contractual dispute between ford motors and versata software. Versata had developed vehicle configuration software acm and cost analysis software mca for ford for vehicle configuration management, spare parts portfolio computing, global co-design, cost measurement. The parties had a long-term software licence agreement, and instead of renewing the agreement after its expiry in 2014, ford had introduced the self-study system pdo. Versata then alleged that ford had been exposed to and studied its core technology during the cooperation and had used these technologies to develop alternative systems, which constituted a commercial secret embezzlement while violating the parties ' licence contracts。
The jury initially upheld versata: $22,386,000 for breach of business secrets and $8,226 million for breach of contract. However, the local court subsequently substantially reversed the compensation, reducing the commercial secrecy compensation to zero and the contractual compensation to a symbolic compensation of $3. Versata subsequently appealed that cafc eventually reinstated contract compensation of $8. 226 million, reversed the decision to award zero compensation for commercial secrecy, remanded damages and upheld ford's finding that it constituted a breach of commercial secrecy。
Logical: the local court had previously held that compensation could only be based on the authorized price of the software of the parties, and had rejected versata's “profit compensation model”. Cafc, however, expressly overturned and stated that the commercial secrets act allowed for “undue profit compensation”
The court noted that the united states protection of business secrets act (dtsa) and michigan law expressly allowed for three paths of actual loss, undue profit, and reasonable licence fees. In other words, compensation may not necessarily be limited by the price of a historical contract if the infringer obtains substantial commercial gains through the misappropriation of technology。
Twenty-two
Crimme hearts has voluntarily withdrawn the trademark infringement action against neil young and the chome hearts。
In september 2025, crocson filed a lawsuit, at the heart of which was neil young, the new band used the name “neil young and the chrome hearts” and sold the related tour of the surroundings (t-shirts, hoodie, etc.). Croker believes that he has had the “chrome hearts” trademark since 1991, while the name of the band and the surrounding goods lead consumers to mistakenly believe that a joint name or cooperative relationship exists. It therefore claimed trademark infringement, unfair competition, market confusion and requested the court to prohibit neil young from continuing to use the name, stop selling the goods in question and pay damages。
To date, crocson has voluntarily withdrawn the complaint, but it is not clear whether the parties have reached a settlement, whether there is a private licence agreement and whether the right to re-indict in the future is retained。
See: the industry speculates that crocson dropped the lawsuit against neil young, the main reason being that neil young has a high position in music culture, and long-term litigation can trigger a backlash in public opinion and affect brand image. In particular, crocon itself is highly dependent on rock culture, star circles and artist ecology。
Big head radar / big tech radar
Apple made a deal with animato
Apple recently entered into a cooperation agreement with ai virtual corporation animato around talent and intellectual property rights. According to publicly disclosed information, apple did not directly complete the whole acquisition of animato, but was given the right to offer an offer of employment to some of its employees, the non-exclusive authorization of animato-related intellectual property rights and the patent application。
Animato has developed virtual image software for video calls, online teaching and ai interactive scenes, and has launched an application to communicate video with users via live animation avatar, call annie. Apples are granted a non-exclusive ip authorization through patent applications to pre-empt real-time virtual images, digital personality interactions and visualization of ai assistants related technical assets, while avoiding the possible higher regulatory review pressures of complete m&as。
Sms / in brief
With effect from 1 december 2025, euipo began to accept applications related to “handicrafts and industrial geographical indications” and, following 74 applications for the protection of geographical indications related to handicrafts and industrial products, limo-japanese china was the first in the eu to be protected by the name of origin。
2. Research by the european patent office and the united nations economic commission for latin america and the caribbean shows that 13. 6 per cent of GDP in latin america and the caribbean is in an intellectual property-intensive manufacturing sector。
3. As nord and nord's patents on smegrupé in canada have expired, hims & hers announced that they will be replicated in the canadian marketing division, meggrupé。
Related links:
Combining previous periods
- global intellectual property weekly
