Non-Assignment Clauses and Patent Assignments

If a patent license agreement contains a non-assignment clause, does that also prohibit assignment of the patent?  A recent case said not necessarily.  It depends on the precise wording.

In Au New Haven v. YKK Corp. (1:15-cv-3411-GHW), (thanks to Finnegan’s law firm) YKK entered into an exclusive license agreement with the patent owner, Au New Haven (actually the inventors, but I’m simplifying things here).  The agreement contained the following clause:

“Neither party hereto shall assign, subcontract, sublicense or otherwise transfer this Agreement or any interest hereunder, or assign or delegate any of its rights or obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of the other party.  Any such attempted assignment, subcontract, sublicense or transfer thereof shall be void and have no force or effect.  This Agreement shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and heirs.  “

Subsequently, Au New Haven assigned the patent to Trelleborg without requesting YKK’s consent.  Au New Haven and Trelleborg later sued YKK for patent infringement and breach of the patent licensing agreement.  YKK filed a motion to dismiss against Trelleborg, arguing that Trelleborg lacked standing to sue for patent infringement because Au New Haven failed to obtain YKK’s consent to the patent assignment which meant that it was void as stated in the agreement.

The federal district court (SDNY) stated that the anti-assignment language did not expressly limit transfer of the underlying patent or render it void.  The question then was whether the patent constituted an “interest hereunder,” meaning an interest under the licensing agreement.  The court stated:

“Here, the anti-assignment provision does not expressly bar transfers of the ‘214 Patent itself, or render transfers fo the ‘214 Patent void…the 2014 Assignment would be void ab initio only if the ‘214 Patent is an “interest” under the licensing agreement (i.e., an “interest hereunder”).  The Court finds that it is not.”

The Court’s rationale was that although the ‘214 Patent was the subject of the agreement, it did not “originate” from the licensing agreement, it did not “arise under” the agreement and it was not “created” in accordance with the agreement.  Consequently, the anti-assignment provisions did not render the underlying patent assignment void and Trelleberg had standing to sue for patent infringement.

The decision doesn’t seem right to me.  If the plaintiffs couldn’t assign their rights under the agreement, but they could assign their patent rights to a third party, then wouldn’t they be in breach of contract at the very least?  Notably, the Court’s conclusion was limited to whether the patent assignment was void, not whether it breached the licensing agreement.  It was thus following New York law by narrowly construing the effect of an anti-assignment clause.  Still, I don’t think it makes sense to construe a clause so that it permits a party to do something that would be a breach of the agreement (which is different from construing a clause as a personal covenant where a violation of the clause would be a breach of contract but the assignment would still be enforceable).  The case could lead to some pretty puzzling results and not necessarily in favor of Au New Haven….