Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in
Minerva Surgical Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. over the rather arcane issue of assignor estoppel. Stop - I can figuratively feel your eyes rolling after reading the phase “assignor estoppel” – “why would I care about that!?” Well, the potential validity of patents developed by your employees that are assigned to (
i.e., owned by) your company are at significant risk based on the potential outcomes of this case.
Assignor estoppel has differences in both philosophy and patent policy from licensee estoppel, which was abolished by the Supreme Court in
Lear, Inc. v. Adkins, in 1969. In
In March, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, in which the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) asserted that a California law allowing union organizers entry onto agricultural private property for up to 120 days a year constitutes a “taking” under the U.S. Constitution. For deregulation advocates like PLF, the case presents a new opportunity for the justices to empower the Takings Clause to be a more central constitutional doctrine buffering private property from what it views as overreaching state authority. But it also asks the court, implicitly, if it remains committed to the principle, celebrated by conservative Justices William Rehnquist and Antonin Scalia, of “federalism,” that is, devolving power from the federal government to the states. Efforts to empower property rights in the federal courts usurp the states’ rights to determine their own property laws.