Back in March Acoustic Technology (ATI) sued Itron for infringement and inducement to infringe Patent Nos. 5,986,574; 6,239,722; and 6,509,841 directed to systems and methods for remote meter reading. ATI had obtained its rights in the patents following an arbitration which held that ATI had rights in the patents, but also implied ownership by other entities. Itron moved to dismiss on the grounds that ATI lacked standing to sue without joining those other parties.
The decision (see below) on the motion by Magistrate Judge Bowler includes an extensive review of the factual background, which seems to support Itron’s position that ATI is a co-owner of the patents and therefore must join the other co-owners to have standing. Ultimately, however, she recommends denying the motion to dismiss as she felt Itron could not meet its burden of proof to use the arbitration decision against ATI. Given the extensive factual analysis in favor of Itron, I wonder if this is one of those rare Magistrate decisions that might get resolved differently by the district judge, in this case Judge Gorton.
Acoustic Technologies, Inc. v. Itron, Inc., 10-10500-NMG (D. Mass. Dec. 21, 2010)
Comments