It’s always important to ensure that intellectual property agreements are carefully drafted. However, on rare occasions a court will see past a drafting error and interpret an agreement to match the apparent intent of the parties, even if certain language of the agreement may conflict with that interpretation.
This happened in a recent case from the Southern District of Indiana. In a consolidated order involving suits that GS CleanTech Corporation (CleanTech) brought against various defendants in that court, the defendants filed motions for summary judgment and asserted that CleanTech lacked standing to bring the suit because CleanTech had not established title to the asserted patents.
CleanTech acquired the patents from GS Ethanol Techs. Inc. (GSET) and other entities by an assignment agreement dated May 15, 2009. The defendants asserted that the chain of title in the patents was broken by a January 2008 Security Agreement in which GSET and the other owners conditionally assigned the patents to YA Global Investments, L.P. (YA Global).
The defendants argued that although the document was titled “Security Agreement,” it was actually an assignment because of the grant clause conveyed “a continuing interest in the patents” to YA Global. The wording of the grant clause was immediate, the agreement was recorded against the patents, and so the defendants argued that the Security Agreement passed ownership of the patents to YA Global.
The court disagreed, stating that the remainder of the Agreement made it clear that the intent of the document was to grant “a continuing security interest in the patents” rather than actual title, even if the grant clause didn’t include that specific word.