1. “Whether contractual language providing that patents ‘shall be the property of [an employing entity, here, the University of Michigan],’ without requiring any further acts from the parties, operates as an automatic assignment of future rights.” 2. “Whether, given Dr. Islam’s employment agreement, the University of Michigan’s bylaws and rules, and the parties’ course of conduct, Omni lacks standing to bring the underlying litigations because the patents were automatically assigned to the University before Dr. Islam’s attempted assignment of them to Omni.”
“We conclude that paragraph 1 of bylaw 3.10 is, at most, a statement of a future intention to assign the patents at issue. It did not effectuate a present automatic assignment of title to UM and thus did not negate Dr. Islam’s assignment of the inventions to Omni. Accordingly, the district court’s denial of Apple’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing is affirmed.”
