Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tri-Star Electronics International, Inc. v. Preci-Dip Duratal SA
Citation: 345 F. App'x 565Docket: Misc. No. 902
Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; May 5, 2009; Federal Appellate Court
Preci-Dip Durtal SA has petitioned for permission to appeal an order from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, which certified the order as involving significant legal issues with substantial grounds for differing opinions and the potential for the appeal to expedite the litigation's conclusion. Tri-Star Electronics International, Inc. opposes this petition. The legal background includes Tri-Star's change of incorporation from Ohio to California in December 1997, followed by a merger with a new California entity and subsequently to Delaware in August 2005, during which it transferred all rights, including patent rights, to the new Delaware corporation. In 2008, Tri-Star initiated a lawsuit against Preci-Dip for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,250,974. Preci-Dip's motion to dismiss was based on the claim that the original inventor assigned rights to Tri-Star, Ohio, which allegedly ceased to exist after the merger, thereby questioning Tri-Star's standing in the case. The district court denied the motion on February 19, 2009, ruling that the assignment agreement was valid and effective, allowing Tri-Star, Ohio to convey rights despite the merger. The court invoked Ohio law to support its finding that Tri-Star, Ohio continued to exist for the purpose of transferring rights. Additionally, the court noted that if rights had not transferred automatically, the assignment could be reformed under equity principles to reflect the parties' intent. The district court granted Preci-Dip's request to certify the order for permissive appeal. The appellate court, exercising its discretion, found sufficient grounds to allow the appeal. Consequently, the petition for permission to appeal is granted.