UnifiedOnline Inc fka UOIP

[I-Glow]

Jurisdiction is a very complex issue - it isn't District's location etc.

In the IP Clouding compliant against Amazon et el Judge Stark ruled:

"Based on a careful review of the provisions of the Symantec–Clouding Agreement, the Court finds that Clouding was not transferred formal legal title to Symantec's patents such that Clouding now qualifies as the “patentee.” Furthermore, while the Symantec–Clouding Agreement was drafted to convey some substantial rights to Clouding, Symantec retained enough of the bundle of rights (for each patent) that, when the Agreement is viewed as a whole, Clouding does not possess “all substantial rights.” As a result, Clouding's rights in the patents-in-suit do not amount to an ownership interest such that it can now be considered the “effective patentee.” antec–Clouding Agreement was drafted to convey some substantial rights to Clouding, Symantec retained enough of the bundle of rights (for each patent) that, when the Agreement is viewed as a whole, Clouding does not possess “all substantial rights.” As a result, Clouding's rights in the patents-in-suit do not amount to an ownership interest such that it can now be considered the “effective patentee.” Clouding, thus, lacks prudential standing to bring suit on its own without joining Symantec.

Due to this lack of standing, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will grant Defendants' motions to dismiss for lack of standing. Appropriate orders will be entered in each of these related cases."

IG