Justia Bankruptcy Opinion Summaries

Crocs's Design Patent 789, titled “Footwear,” has a single claim for the “ornamental design for footwear.” Crocs sued Dawgs for infringement, Dawgs sought inter partes reexamination (IPE) under 35 U.S.C. 311. The district court stayed its proceedings. The examiner rejected the claim as anticipated, 35 U.S.C. 102(b). While an appeal to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was pending, Dawgs filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court approved the sale of all of its assets to a new entity, Holdings, “not free and clear of any Claims Crocs . . . may hold for patent infringement occurring post-Closing Date by any person ... or any defenses Crocs may have in respect of any litigation claims that are sold.” The bankruptcy court authorized the distribution of the net sale proceeds and dismissed Dawgs’s bankruptcy case. Holdings assigned all rights, including explicitly the claims asserted by Dawgs in the infringement action and the IPE, to Mojave. Dawgs dissolved but continued to exist for limited purposes, including “prosecuting and defending suits" and "claims of any kind.”The Board declined to change the real-party-in-interest from the IPE requestor to Mojave, then reversed the examiner’s rejection of the patent’s claim. The Federal Circuit granted the motion to substitute. The assignments indicate that Mojave is Dawgs's successor-in-interest; as such, Mojave has standing. If the Board precludes substitution on the basis of a transfer in interest because of a late filing, it would defeat the important interest in having the proper party before the Board. View "Mojave Desert Holdings, LLC v. Crocs, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs are a putative class of individuals who asserted personal injury claims against Old GM, and whose successor liability claims were extinguished during bankruptcy. Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, relying on A & D Auto Sales, Inc. v. United States, 748 F.3d 1142 (Fed. Cir. 2014), to allege that the extinguishment of their claims without just compensation violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.In regard to the claims alleging coercion of Old GM, the Federal Circuit held that the statute of limitations had run when plaintiffs filed their complaint six years after their claims accrued. However, in regard to plaintiff's claim that the government had coerced the bankruptcy court and the district court, the court held that plaintiffs' claims were not within the claims court's jurisdiction. Finally, the court need not address the question of whether plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged a loss of value of their alleged property interests. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Campbell v. United States" on Justia Law