IP Law Daily, PATENT—Fed. Cir.: Dismissal for lack of standing affirmed where plaintiff lacked ownership of the asserted patents, (Mar 17, 2026)

By Kevin M. Finson, J.D.

Claim for infringement failed for lack of constitutional standing because the plaintiff did not own the patents it asserted as of the date of filing.

There was no error in a trial court’s determination that an alleged patentee lacked standing to sue for infringement, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has held. The predecessor in interest had assigned its interest in the patents in question to a non-party in 2006 before attempting to assign that interest again to the plaintiff in 2012 (Applications In Internet Time, LLC v. Salesforce, Inc., No. 25-2026 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 16, 2026)).

Applications in Internet Time, LLC (AIT) was the owner of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,356,482 (the ’482 patent) and 8,484,111 (the ’111 patent), both of which related to Integrated Change Management Unit (ICMU) software. AIT brought suit against Salesforce, Inc. (Salesforce) for infringement of both patents. Salesforce moved to dismiss for lack of constitutional standing, arguing that AIT did not own either patent because it claimed to have obtained them via assignment from a company which had previously assigned all of its intellectual property to a non-party third person, and therefore at the time of the assignment to AIT the assignor lacked any rights to the patents. The trial court granted the dismissal and declined to grant post-dismissal equitable relief. AIT appealed.

Constitutional standing. AIT argued that the trial court erred by finding it lacked constitutional standing to bring the suit. The trial court’s decision was based on a 2006 agreement which transferred “all... intellectual property rights” from AIT’s predecessor in interest ASI to Beverly Nelson. Nelson was a principal in AIT, formed in 2005, and in 2012 ASI conveyed its patent rights to AIT. The court found that because ASI had conveyed all of its intellectual property to Nelson in 2006, it could not have conveyed the patent rights at issue to AIT in 2012, and therefore AIT did not possess the patents under which it sued. The trial court did not err by declining to consider extrinsic evidence, and did not clearly err in finding that Salesforce had overcome the presumption of validity of the 2012 assignment created by recording with the Patent Office.

Equitable relief. After the trial court dismissed the case, AIT sought equitable relief under the rule for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest or for contract reformation under California law. The court found that the trial court had properly denied this relief because it ought to have been raised during the opposition to the motion to dismiss and because standing to bring suit for patent infringement depended on ownership of the patent at the time of filing.

The court affirmed the dismissal and denial of equitable relief.

The Case is No. 25-2026.

Judge: Lourie, A.

Attorneys: Michael Devincenzo (King & Wood Mallesons LLP) for Applications In Internet Time, LLC. Derek L. Shaffer (Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP) for Salesforce, Inc.

Companies: Applications In Internet Time, LLC; Salesforce, Inc.

Cases: Patent FedCirNews