Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership
- Ten Questions about Confirmatory Assignments
![confirmatory assignment copyright](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsrA91U0kvEgrR1K9N3VcXnQoqkFpwv_EbTU9BQ6IHEb6f3Ayal6MS5CS-cnom1o-VX-DA6KVHZzq5loB1DzAwZfo5xOxozBgLVsJDHBWAeF6e5-GMZeRSbUxVrDtcqon8u4Db/s400/ten+questions.jpg)
1. Depending upon the applicable IP rights and related law of contract of the jurisdiction, to what extent can an unwritten agreement validly assign IP rights? 2. Assuming that an unwritten assigment is valid, what is the evidentiary showing that is required? 3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? 4. Is the evidentiary showing different in connection with establishing the validity of the assignment in the context of a transaction? 5. How can a purchaser receive sufficient comfort about the validity of the assignment, or is it a matter of risk allocation depending upon the positon of the parties? 6. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ once again in the context of a court proceeding? 7. Does the standard of evidence to establish an unwritten assignment differ yet again iin the context of taxation? 8. Is a confirmatory assignment a form of ratification? 9. If it not a form of ratification, what is the proper legal characterization for the agreement? 10. In light of all of the foregoing, does the confirmatory assignment confer any benefit to the parties, other evidentiary or substantive?
![confirmatory assignment copyright Ten Questions about Confirmatory Assignments](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsrA91U0kvEgrR1K9N3VcXnQoqkFpwv_EbTU9BQ6IHEb6f3Ayal6MS5CS-cnom1o-VX-DA6KVHZzq5loB1DzAwZfo5xOxozBgLVsJDHBWAeF6e5-GMZeRSbUxVrDtcqon8u4Db/s72-c/ten+questions.jpg)
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
13 comments:
Confirmatory assignments are frequently used where a written assignment already exists, but the parties do not want to disclose that document because it contains sensitive information (e.g. payments, etc.). In addition, they are often used to confirm an 'automatic' assignment (e.g. from an employee to his/her employer). The latter may be useful, for example, when submitting a US application with UK inventors.
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://www.blogger.com/img/blogger_logo_round_35.png)
In the United States, this is a statutory question: "Applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing." 35 USC Section 261. Your questions are far more interesting as applied to licenses or servitudes more generally. Based on hundreds of years of common law, one would imagine that all personal property, including patents, would require encumbrances to be publicly recorded for them to be enforceable on subsequent purchasers for value without actual notice. In fact, equitable servitudes on personal property were not enforceable at all at common law. As far as I can tell, patents present a unique exception to this history. For that reason I have wondered whether it is fair even to call patents property -- despite their being deemed so by statute. On my view, this is the most underappreciated obstacle to the emergence of a healthy market for patents. Lemley and Myhrvold suggested years ago a solution to the problem -- namely, of requiring the public disclosure of all assignments and licenses. That seems to have gone nowhere thanks to an incomplete understanding by current stakeholders of how such a transition would result in an entirely new market equilibrium, or at least to the general desire for incremental rather than radical changes to the status quo.
Confirmatory assignments are commonly used to record assignments in writing where the commercial terms of an assignment are to remain confidential. I cannot think of many instances where I would be happy to rely on a written confirmation of an unwritten assignment. It is my understanding that in most common law countries an assignment must be in writing for it to be legally effective, otherwise at best your unwritten assignment may only transfer an equitable interest in the relevant IP. A type of assignment document I have occasionally seen and used is the assignment that is both operative and confirmatory. In other words, "I confirm that I assigned, but if that assignment wasn't legally effective for any reason then I hereby assign". It isn't ideal, but sometimes it's the only way to fix a break in the chain of title when you really don’t think you can rely on that unwritten assignment.
3. Can one record an unwritten assignment on, e.g., the appropriate patent or trade mark registry? If so, what proof is required? Yes, that is possible in certain jurisdictions. At the most you would need a date of assignment and particulars of the assignee and the assignor. The relevant forms necessary to record the assignment are prepared by the agents and signed on behalf of the assignee. Example, Singapore
Rob hit the nail on the head. They are used to simplify matters in circumstances where the parties may have been better to have signed short-form agreemnts. A party will often not want to disclose a document with all of the juicy commercial terms, so a confirmatory assignment may be used. A final (arguably erroneous) use may be where a party has, to settle a matter, assigned a CTM under cover of a letter or unilateral agreement signed only by the owner. In the case of a CTM, the assignment has to be signed by both parties to be valid. Therefore, whilst the mark may be assigned in the head of the previous owner, something more needs to be done to validly assign. Arguably the follow-up is not confirmatory in those circumstances, but I've seen the document that followed described as confirmatory.
Associated with the issue of confirmatory assignments is the issue of assignment documents with a purported "effective date" earlier than the date of execution of the document. In jurisdictions where rights in an application can only be assigned in writing, the writing requirement was then not fulfilled as at the "effective date". This may be particularly important in relation to priority claims.
I have seen such Confirmatory Assignments used as evidence supporting a transfer request before the EPO, but it wasn't my job to question them even though the whole procedure looked quite fishy to me. Once upon a time there was a nice little company A which got gobbled by company B. One year later, company B was in turn purchased lock, stock and barrel by company C. A, B and C were in three different countries. A's European representative kept prosecuting the EP cases, but only bothered to file a transfer request when a given application was just about to mature into a grant, providing in most cases a confirmatory assignment drafted by an US notary public as evidence. The document stated that A's IP was transferred to three entities Ca, Cb and Cc, which are all presumably 100% subsidiaries of C. I infer that the applications are jointly owned by all three companies. The assignment is signed by Ca, Cb and Cc's officers as well as the notary. The document couldn't have been signed by A's officers, since A did not exist anymore at that point. There is no mention whatsoever of company B either , so the document did not describe what actually happened, since A could never have dealt directly with C. The representative's cover letter only requests transfer to company Ca, leaving Cb and Cc out of the picture, and Ca is the only name entered in the EPO's register. I googled up a bit and I found out that B wrote in its ultimate annual that it now owned all of B's IP, and C later stated in its own annual report that B's IP was now located in yet another subsidiary Cd, different from Ca, Cb or Cc. In one case the Umschreibestelle questioned the confirmatory assignment in that in only bore the signature of one of the parties. The representative adamantly replied that the assignment should be taken at face value and that's it. The EPO did not insist, and took down the transfer - in Ca's name only. In one of the applications this examiner was bone-headed enough to be minded to consider a refusal, prompting the representative to file a "divisional" application in order to keep the show going. The weird thing was that the "divisional" was in A's name, even though it no longer existed for years. The new application was eventually abandoned, so all the interesting questions which arose did not need to be answered. From the preceding, I think I'd start kicking and yelling about who actually owns a patent (and thus entitled to initiate action) if I were ever dragged before court in an infringement action where a confirmatory assignment was involved. The standard for proving a transfer of rights appears to be much lower as to the right to transfer of an opposition. A confirmatory assignment may appear a practical shortcut, but it could be a false saving. As to the argument that a confirmatory assignment can keep details secret, I don't think they're worth the risk either. I've seen IP sale contracts accepted as evidence for a transfer before the EPO where more black ink was poured to obscure passages than the CIA ever used when declassifying a document. BTW, one of these contracts involved yet another of C's subsidiries transferring its IP to numbered entities conveniently located in tax flexible territories.
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLYAxGf0sXYDp5BMEBaKcrJxldrbGIneTRUtUQwPGb7GtN8oA-Siz-A7XmmYIMilnYPm5Hk8KqKoYnvc4MWWpTWy_ehy6GFhCF7n7Diz3Q_RGuF4oV1B3a6W-ZEPq1zWI/s45-c/Profile+Picture.jpg)
Thanks for all of your great comments. In one off-site communication on the topic yesterday, I suggested that confirmatory assignments are among the "dirty little secrets" of IP practice. She wrote back that in fact they are the "dity little not-so-secrets" of IP. I suspect that we are both right.
Something that does not appear to be widely appreciated is that the box for the date of agreement on EPO Form 1002 is provided for the convenience of the applicant only, there being no requirement in the EPC to provide a date. I have often filed forms with no date where the information was not available, and no objection has ever been raised. I have only seen this explicitly stated in the answer to question 80 in Dr. Günter Gall's classic book for EQE candidates "European & International patent applications: questions and answers" [ISBN 0-85121-555-6; 1989 edition]. Dr Günter Gall was a Director of the EPO and evidently wrote with authority. I have had more knowledgeable inventors query the appropriateness of signing any sort of assignment of rights that he doesn't own because the invention belongs to the employer by virtue of UK law, and have then had to explain the USA [for example] doesn't recognise this aspect of UK law. Such assignments made in respect of a first filing are certainly useful when subsequently filing in the USA if the inventor is no longer contactable or become uncooperative, eg due to imminent redundancy.
Anonymous' knowledgeable inventors have a point, and this has always been my rationale for obtaining confirmatory assignments. It must surely be a fundamental principle that one cannot assign what one does not own, so a written assignment from an employee to an employer that already owns the invention by terms of a contract of employment must surely be void. The problem is not solved by writing the employment contract in such a way as to place the employee under an obligation to assign, because a subsequent assignment to another party, while being a breach of contract, will not necessarily enable the invention to be reclaimed by the employer (see, eg Stanford v Roche 583 F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As I understand it, the US law relating to employee inventions is basically the common law. The issue is not that the USPTO will not recognise that the employer owns the invention, rather it is the specific requirement that the inventor assign the rights reflected in the particular patent application, ie that a suitable assignment cannot be completed until the inventor has the actual filed specification and claims before her. A general assignment of the invention, and all notional future rights, will not suffice for this purpose. However, an assignment of a PCT application designating the US is fine (although it may take a little effort to persuade the USPTO to accept a document that is not in its standard form). An unavailable or uncooperative inventor remains problematic even if you have a suitable assignment document, because the USPTO cannot accept the filed application until it has an inventor's declaration, or a petition has been granted to allow the application to be accepted without the signed declaration. Though not a US attorney, for my sins I have found myself with clients in this situation, and it can be a lot of work to resolve.
"This and the related topic of failure to agree or document assignment of IPRs arise all too frequently. I have been faced with the challenge of "I paid, so I own" throughout my career. Here are 10 thoughts on this topic: 1. No one should believe that the law will come to their rescue if they do not document a written assignment and have it signed by the assignor and the assignee. 2. Assignments of IPRs are a perfect example of lack of global harmonisation. There is huge discrepancy between national laws as to what formalities are required - few require more than a written assignment signed by both parties. 3. The greatest density of disputes is between consultants and the corporations who hire them. The expectation is that IPRs in the "work product" automatically transfer. Big mistake. 4. English law enjoys equity, and can be persuaded to find an intention to assign (aka an equitable assignment). Hoping for this result is a lottery. In other parts of Europe, the odds are worse. 5. The position is not as random within an employee/employer relationship, because generally the first owner is the employer. However, at the edges ("course of employment") it is well worth documenting the position. In this context, do not assume that ownership is the end of the matter. Always think about attribution issues (such as moral rights) and economic reward (for exceptional contribution). 6. Failure to document the IPR position is statistically likely to create a significant commercial issue downstream. I have personally seen IPOs delayed, joint ventures stall and tens of disputes that frustrate and delay commercial exploitation. 7. The consolation prize in an ownership dispute is typically a licence. Within this one word, is a world of pain as the parties debate scope (field of use), term (for a project to perpetual), ambit (exclusive to non-exclusive), not to mention royalty. So whilst ownership is undoubtedly first place, bottom of the class will not get much at all. 8. Banks and investors still struggle to understand and value IPRs in the same way as tangible assets such as property and stock, so they scare easily. If chain of title and ownership is not clear, expect them to have significant concerns in all other areas such as validity and infringement. 9. Joint ownership looks like a good compromise. Normally it isn't. There is no global uniformity on the rights conferred on joint owners - and even within a jurisdiction it's different between the various IPRs. 10. Which means that I'm normally just so relieved to receive a confirmatory assignment, that I seldom have the energy to think about Neil's 10 questions - but now I will!"
Many interesting comments on assignments. Here is a further related issue, perhaps basic compared to a confirmatory assignment under the original fact pattern. Assume the inventor has executed an assignment to her employer for a US provisional patent application that includes assignment of all later applications, using standard language regarding assigning international applications, US, non-US applications. The assignment properly assigns the right to claim priority. Then a PCT application is timely filed that claims priority to this provisional. The PCT application includes new disclosure in the specification, including new examples, and new claims. Is a second assignment needed or does the assignment of the provisional suffice? For all jurisdictions? If a new assignment is needed, how is it worded to avoid the issue of 're-assigning' what has already been assigned in the provisional assignment? Seems one can only assign rights one has not already assigned away.
In answer to the last comment, yes, a new assignment is needed. An assignment has to relate to an invention, and if that invention is new, it cannot have been previously assigned. Equitably, yes, but then we argue over whether the new invention is actually covered.
All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment. It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow. Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html
The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!
![confirmatory assignment copyright The IPKat: Intellectual Property News and Fun for Everyone!](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9JS8GzAckEg/XyhaVg-ER6I/AAAAAAAACmA/6M-BHtL9tGoOjTA5qyQcgmUuw4LQaQmcACK4BGAYYCw/s232/IPKat%2BLogo%2B-%2B2020.jpg)
How many page-views has the IPKat received?
Not just any old ipkat ....
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_CHG2GRbeET8/TSLyfMdp8PI/AAAAAAAARG8/pnaikx6Wd9Y/s200/blawg2.jpg)
Get the Kat in your Inbox!
The kat that tweets current followers: 22.9k.
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fEWgo877EYE/T31IjA4r5XI/AAAAAAAAVJ4/eX3gP7KW5Mc/s200/tweetcat2.png)
Follow the IPKat on LinkedIn
Follow the IPKat on Facebook
Follow the ipkat on reddit.
The IPKat's most-read posts in the past 30 days
![confirmatory assignment copyright BREAKING: Referral to the Enlarged Board of Appeal on claim interpretation confirmed (G1/24)](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj-mKUuQbixG-cxoC2vjFOz4VtTSu39HHZMG_1HQsgbq6VPpciHcp5ygTxJzNoVy8kI9K08ZkqvCEmm0wy9stCHpYoevpeewRAHqGjB8KbAEIHp5D-fB_sZrvcp2SRzQ4b3m9XM8AMGVV4rJl8tZQyaA6H0Scub8ZQw4UsBvdUi0YUFpNLD6AXv/s72-c/IMG_0065.jpg)
Search This Blog
Blog Archive
- ► August 2024 (2)
- ► July 2024 (41)
- ► June 2024 (39)
- ► May 2024 (35)
- ► April 2024 (40)
- ► March 2024 (38)
- ► February 2024 (37)
- ► January 2024 (40)
- ► December 2023 (48)
- ► November 2023 (40)
- ► October 2023 (39)
- ► September 2023 (39)
- ► August 2023 (36)
- ► July 2023 (37)
- ► June 2023 (40)
- ► May 2023 (46)
- ► April 2023 (44)
- ► March 2023 (34)
- ► February 2023 (39)
- ► January 2023 (36)
- ► December 2022 (30)
- ► November 2022 (35)
- ► October 2022 (35)
- ► September 2022 (34)
- ► August 2022 (24)
- ► July 2022 (21)
- ► June 2022 (24)
- ► May 2022 (24)
- ► April 2022 (26)
- ► March 2022 (26)
- ► February 2022 (39)
- ► January 2022 (42)
- ► December 2021 (40)
- ► November 2021 (40)
- ► October 2021 (34)
- ► September 2021 (37)
- ► August 2021 (36)
- ► July 2021 (39)
- ► June 2021 (25)
- ► May 2021 (40)
- ► April 2021 (35)
- ► March 2021 (36)
- ► February 2021 (28)
- ► January 2021 (41)
- ► December 2020 (47)
- ► November 2020 (37)
- ► October 2020 (40)
- ► September 2020 (42)
- ► August 2020 (44)
- ► July 2020 (56)
- ► June 2020 (48)
- ► May 2020 (50)
- ► April 2020 (52)
- ► March 2020 (58)
- ► February 2020 (54)
- ► January 2020 (62)
- ► December 2019 (45)
- ► November 2019 (60)
- ► October 2019 (66)
- ► September 2019 (58)
- ► August 2019 (54)
- ► July 2019 (60)
- ► June 2019 (60)
- ► May 2019 (66)
- ► April 2019 (74)
- ► March 2019 (67)
- ► February 2019 (69)
- ► January 2019 (68)
- ► December 2018 (50)
- ► November 2018 (42)
- ► October 2018 (47)
- ► September 2018 (31)
- ► August 2018 (29)
- ► July 2018 (28)
- ► June 2018 (37)
- ► May 2018 (44)
- ► April 2018 (44)
- ► March 2018 (60)
- ► February 2018 (58)
- ► January 2018 (54)
- ► December 2017 (44)
- ► November 2017 (61)
- ► October 2017 (68)
- ► September 2017 (38)
- ► August 2017 (30)
- ► July 2017 (57)
- ► June 2017 (62)
- ► May 2017 (57)
- ► April 2017 (53)
- ► March 2017 (53)
- ► February 2017 (41)
- ► January 2017 (35)
- ► December 2016 (55)
- ► November 2016 (45)
- ► October 2016 (44)
- ► September 2016 (61)
- ► August 2016 (33)
- ► July 2016 (38)
- ► June 2016 (47)
- ► May 2016 (62)
- ► April 2016 (62)
- ► March 2016 (63)
- ► February 2016 (41)
- ► January 2016 (47)
- ► December 2015 (57)
- ► November 2015 (76)
- ► October 2015 (71)
- ► September 2015 (60)
- ► August 2015 (69)
- ► July 2015 (74)
- ► June 2015 (72)
- ► May 2015 (67)
- ► April 2015 (65)
- ► March 2015 (93)
- ► February 2015 (73)
- ► January 2015 (87)
- ► December 2014 (89)
- ► November 2014 (58)
- ► October 2014 (73)
- ► September 2014 (78)
- ► August 2014 (68)
- ► July 2014 (73)
- ► June 2014 (76)
- ► May 2014 (72)
- ► April 2014 (69)
- ► March 2014 (67)
- ► February 2014 (78)
- ► January 2014 (78)
- ► December 2013 (64)
- ► November 2013 (78)
- ► October 2013 (72)
- ► September 2013 (54)
- ► August 2013 (57)
- ► July 2013 (72)
- ► June 2013 (56)
- ► May 2013 (63)
- ► April 2013 (73)
- ► March 2013 (62)
- ► February 2013 (55)
- ► January 2013 (62)
- ► December 2012 (48)
- ► November 2012 (77)
- ► October 2012 (69)
- ► September 2012 (65)
- ► August 2012 (56)
- ► July 2012 (70)
- ► June 2012 (68)
- ► May 2012 (61)
- ► April 2012 (70)
- ► March 2012 (78)
- ► February 2012 (81)
- ► January 2012 (81)
- ► December 2011 (66)
- ► November 2011 (69)
- ► October 2011 (62)
- ► September 2011 (43)
- ► August 2011 (61)
- ► July 2011 (68)
- ► June 2011 (61)
- ► May 2011 (63)
- ► April 2011 (68)
- ► March 2011 (76)
- ► February 2011 (66)
- ► January 2011 (64)
- ► December 2010 (74)
- ► November 2010 (60)
- ► October 2010 (67)
- ► September 2010 (60)
- ► August 2010 (64)
- Invisible goods
- Breaking news: Vodkat appeal dismissed
- Friday fantasies
- Inbev loses Budweiser CTM appeal
- Schlumberger v EMGS: A Non-Obvious Marriage of Skills
- A press-ing problem
- Wednesday whimsies
- A blueprint to nurture the creatives: it takes Bra...
- The definite Article?
- If you think software patents are a pain, try soft...
- Do poor people like different patents to rich people?
- Monday miscellany
- Letter from AmeriKat - Hot News - too hot to handle?
- Intellectual property standards: how do YOU behave?
- The bare facts and the Naked truth
- EPO: hearings in "broccoli and tomato cases"
- Never mind the golden rabbits, what about the Gold...
- New German court to try chocolate rabbit disputes
- This bunny (litigation) never dies
- Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby (Justice St...
- Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice St...
- EPO: English version of notice concerning communic...
- Some culinary IP news....
- Another referral to the EBO: Allowability of discl...
- All threats, no action ...
- New referral to the EBO: until when can a correcti...
- The Branding Summer of our Content and Discontent
- Azzurri take aim at "creaking" patent system
- DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too
- Added matter, intermediate generalisation and a go...
- Becker match goes to a fifth set
- Two outstanding competitions: a Kat apologises
- England's new shirt sponsors?
- When a School Boy's Trick Meets Strangers in a Tra...
- Portakabin ruling: a bad result for trade mark own...
- An IP system for the 21st Century: Gurry speaks
- Odd Couple challenge Digital Economy Act
- "You say vuvuzela, I say lepatata ..."
- Cracking Ideas and a day to remember
- Importing non-UK decoders into the EU: a multiplic...
- Monsanto: court makes a meal of soya ruling
- A PET aversion? Biorenewable monomers take centre ...
- EPO implicated in Golden Balls dispute
- Letter from AmeriKat II: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
- Letter from AmeriKat I: Bilski, Baby! (Justice Ke...
- Is rebranding the key to reversing BlackBerry's fo...
- Old woman rebranded in wonder makeover
- The EQE "Pre-Exam" - Who Needs It?
- Heartache for heartburn drugmaker, though court sw...
- A map, a copyright dispute and the Bundesverfassun...
- ► June 2010 (57)
- ► May 2010 (61)
- ► April 2010 (75)
- ► March 2010 (63)
- ► February 2010 (50)
- ► January 2010 (54)
- ► December 2009 (50)
- ► November 2009 (70)
- ► October 2009 (58)
- ► September 2009 (49)
- ► August 2009 (55)
- ► July 2009 (59)
- ► June 2009 (57)
- ► May 2009 (40)
- ► April 2009 (51)
- ► March 2009 (61)
- ► February 2009 (56)
- ► January 2009 (60)
- ► December 2008 (53)
- ► November 2008 (66)
- ► October 2008 (60)
- ► September 2008 (52)
- ► August 2008 (56)
- ► July 2008 (60)
- ► June 2008 (74)
- ► May 2008 (78)
- ► April 2008 (72)
- ► March 2008 (70)
- ► February 2008 (59)
- ► January 2008 (75)
- ► December 2007 (55)
- ► November 2007 (71)
- ► October 2007 (64)
- ► September 2007 (54)
- ► August 2007 (51)
- ► July 2007 (77)
- ► June 2007 (75)
- ► May 2007 (76)
- ► April 2007 (62)
- ► March 2007 (92)
- ► February 2007 (84)
- ► January 2007 (83)
- ► December 2006 (59)
- ► November 2006 (74)
- ► October 2006 (57)
- ► September 2006 (52)
- ► August 2006 (53)
- ► July 2006 (61)
- ► June 2006 (60)
- ► May 2006 (66)
- ► April 2006 (64)
- ► March 2006 (83)
- ► February 2006 (59)
- ► January 2006 (78)
- ► December 2005 (65)
- ► November 2005 (68)
- ► October 2005 (56)
- ► September 2005 (68)
- ► August 2005 (70)
- ► July 2005 (74)
- ► June 2005 (90)
- ► May 2005 (79)
- ► April 2005 (84)
- ► March 2005 (63)
- ► February 2005 (70)
- ► January 2005 (83)
- ► December 2004 (81)
- ► November 2004 (95)
- ► October 2004 (81)
- ► September 2004 (66)
- ► August 2004 (43)
- ► July 2004 (63)
- ► June 2004 (49)
- ► May 2004 (49)
- ► April 2004 (46)
- ► March 2004 (61)
- ► February 2004 (40)
- ► January 2004 (59)
- ► December 2003 (57)
- ► November 2003 (62)
- ► October 2003 (52)
- ► September 2003 (58)
- ► August 2003 (73)
- ► July 2003 (40)
Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence
Subscribe to the ipkat's posts by email here, feed me ipkat.
![confirmatory assignment copyright ' border=](https://resources.blogblog.com/img/icon_feed12.png)
Has the Kat got your tongue?
The ipkat's cousins: some ip-friendly blogs for you, out for the count....
![confirmatory assignment copyright Trustpilot](https://www.contractscounsel.com/static/images/trustpilot.1224ffe5fdcd.png)
Copyright Assignment Agreement: Definition & Sample
Jump to section.
ContractsCounsel has assisted 35 clients with copyright assignment agreements and maintains a network of 61 intellectual property lawyers available daily.
What is a Copyright Assignment Agreement?
A copyright assignment agreement is a legal document transferring the ownership and rights of a specific creative work or works. A copyright assignment agreement protects the rights of parties involved by clarifying and providing a record of ownership of a work, especially in the event of a transfer.
Notarization of a copyright assignment agreement is not legally required, but it is always a good idea to get an agreement like this notarized. Copyright assignment agreements can cover works such as writing or artwork and are sometimes known as a sales agreement for copyright.
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
Common Sections in Copyright Assignment Agreements
Below is a list of common sections included in Copyright Assignment Agreements. These sections are linked to the below sample agreement for you to explore.
Copyright Assignment Agreement Sample
Reference : Security Exchange Commission - Edgar Database, EX-10.15 16 d437016dex1015.htm INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT , Viewed October 13, 2021, View Source on SEC .
Who Helps With Copyright Assignment Agreements?
Lawyers with backgrounds working on copyright assignment agreements work with clients to help. Do you need help with a copyright assignment agreement?
Post a project in ContractsCounsel's marketplace to get free bids from lawyers to draft, review, or negotiate copyright assignment agreements. All lawyers are vetted by our team and peer reviewed by our customers for you to explore before hiring.
ContractsCounsel is not a law firm, and this post should not be considered and does not contain legal advice. To ensure the information and advice in this post are correct, sufficient, and appropriate for your situation, please consult a licensed attorney. Also, using or accessing ContractsCounsel's site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and ContractsCounsel.
Need help with a Copyright Assignment Agreement?
Meet some of our copyright assignment agreement lawyers.
Christopher R.
Corporate and transactional attorney in sixth year of practice. Focus areas include general corporate counsel, labor and employment law, business partnership matters, securities matters related to privately-held companies, and regulatory compliance in securities and finance matters.
I'm an attorney available to help small businesses in Georgia get started with initial business set-up, required filings, tax strategies, etc. I'm also available to draft, review, and negotiate contracts. I can draft and file real estate quit claims as well. My experience areas include small business startups, information technology, technology innovation, real estate transactions, taxes, community associations, intellectual property, electrical engineering, the business of video game development, higher education, business requirements definition, technology consulting, program management, and the electric utility industry. I work part-time for a local law firm and part-time in my solo practice. I'm also an adjunct professor at Southern New Hampshire University teaching business innovation and business law. In addition, I'm part owner, legal counsel to, and a board member of a virtual reality video game development company. I am a member of the Georgia Bar Association. Please reach out if you need attorney, documentation or consulting help in any of those areas!
My name is Ryenne Shaw and I help business owners build businesses that operate as assets instead of liabilities, increase in value over time and build wealth. My areas of expertise include corporate formation and business structure, contract law, employment/labor law, business risk and compliance and intellectual property. I also serve as outside general counsel to several businesses across various industries nationally. I spent most of my early legal career assisting C.E.O.s, General Counsel, and in-house legal counsel of both large and smaller corporations in minimizing liability, protecting business assets and maximizing profits. While working with many of these entities, I realized that smaller entities are often underserved. I saw that smaller business owners weren’t receiving the same level of legal support larger corporations relied upon to grow and sustain. I knew this was a major contributor to the ceiling that most small businesses hit before they’ve even scratched the surface of their potential. And I knew at that moment that all of this lack of knowledge and support was creating a huge wealth gap. After over ten years of legal experience, I started my law firm to provide the legal support small to mid-sized business owners and entrepreneurs need to grow and protect their brands, businesses, and assets. I have a passion for helping small to mid-sized businesses and startups grow into wealth-building assets by leveraging the same legal strategies large corporations have used for years to create real wealth. I enjoy connecting with my clients, learning about their visions and identifying ways to protect and maximize the reach, value and impact of their businesses. I am a strong legal writer with extensive litigation experience, including both federal and state (and administratively), which brings another element to every contract I prepare and the overall counsel and value I provide. Some of my recent projects include: - Negotiating & Drafting Commercial Lease Agreements - Drafting Trademark Licensing Agreements - Drafting Ambassador and Influencer Agreements - Drafting Collaboration Agreements - Drafting Service Agreements for service-providers, coaches and consultants - Drafting Master Service Agreements and SOWs - Drafting Terms of Service and Privacy Policies - Preparing policies and procedures for businesses in highly regulated industries - Drafting Employee Handbooks, Standard Operations and Procedures (SOPs) manuals, employment agreements - Creating Employer-employee infrastructure to ensure business compliance with employment and labor laws - Drafting Independent Contractor Agreements and Non-Disclosure/Non-Competition/Non-Solicitation Agreements - Conducting Federal Trademark Searches and filing trademark applications - Preparing Trademark Opinion Letters after conducting appropriate legal research - Drafting Letters of Opinion for Small Business Loans - Drafting and Responding to Cease and Desist Letters I service clients throughout the United States across a broad range of industries.
Meghan Thomas is an accomplished transactional attorney. She specializes in IP, real estate and tech related transactional matters, and business contracts. Meghan's innovative leadership style has attributed to the firm's rapid development and presence in the metro-Atlanta market. She obtained her Doctor of Law from Emory University where she worked with the State Attorney General and litigated property disputes for disadvantaged clients. Prior to practicing, Meghan negotiated complex transactions for Fortune 500 tech and healthcare companies. She lives with her family in Southwest Atlanta, enjoys cooking, travel, dance and continues to develop her research in the areas of transactional law and legal sustainability.
Since 2008, I have worked to assist clients in solving problems and addressing challenges that inevitably arise as a business grows - both anticipated and unexpected. My experience in Georgia and Tennessee in both drafting contracts and enforcing them via litigation and/or arbitration has provided clients with unique insights that help them anticipate problems and inform their decisions from start to finish.
I am an attorney licensed in Alabama and have been in solo practice for 7 years. I have experience in Contracts drafting and review, Litigation and Immigration practice areas. I am available for new projects.
With 15 years of extensive transactional/contracts experience reviewing and negotiating commercial contracts including a wide variety of purchase orders and contracts and non-disclosure agreements (NDA), I believe I can immediately contribute to the continued success of your team. I have been commended for a range of valuable skills—excellent contract management and contract administration, legal research, risk analysis, drafting and negotiations, and strategic thinking. I have worked as a legal consultant for 10+ years and I have reviewed over 7,500 contracts through this position. Contracts I have reviewed include but not limited to purchase orders, commercial and construction contracts, equipment rental agreements, non-disclosure, confidentiality, vendor agreements, service agreements, site access agreements, international agreements, request for proposals (RFP), bids and government contracts. These experiences have enabled me to master the ability to work independently and expeditiously to identify and assess issues and provide legally sound recommendations, consistent with good business practices. I have led teams (sales, insurance and management) to successfully negotiate contract terms with customers. Effective Communicator and Negotiator. I am a people person, and for the past 13 years, I have acquired excellent oral and written communication skills that enable me to interact and negotiate effectively with stakeholders at all levels. I am a self-starter with a strong work ethic. I have a high degree of resourcefulness, diligence, and dependability. Most important, I adapt to changing priorities quickly, thriving in an environment with high volume and short turnaround deadlines. My experience over the years allows me to transfer my skills to all types of contracts to meet the client’s needs. I am hopeful to provide similar legal expertise, effective contract administration and leadership to your organization. It would be a pleasure to meet within the next few weeks and discuss how my qualifications, experience, and capabilities will best fit the needs of your outfit.
Find the best lawyer for your project
![confirmatory assignment copyright](https://www.contractscounsel.com/static/images/green_trustpilot_star.3f926d016de5.png)
Quick, user friendly and one of the better ways I've come across to get ahold of lawyers willing to take new clients.
Intellectual Property lawyers by top cities
- Austin Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Boston Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Chicago Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Dallas Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Denver Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Houston Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Los Angeles Intellectual Property Lawyers
- New York Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Phoenix Intellectual Property Lawyers
- San Diego Intellectual Property Lawyers
- Tampa Intellectual Property Lawyers
Copyright Assignment Agreement lawyers by city
- Austin Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Boston Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Chicago Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Dallas Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Denver Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Houston Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Los Angeles Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- New York Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Phoenix Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- San Diego Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
- Tampa Copyright Assignment Agreement Lawyers
ContractsCounsel User
IP Protection for Product Development
Location: florida, turnaround: less than a week, service: drafting, doc type: ip assignment agreement, number of bids: 5, bid range: $250 - $750, confidential information release agreement, location: maryland, bid range: $1 - $1,000, want to speak to someone.
Get in touch below and we will schedule a time to connect!
Find lawyers and attorneys by city
![confirmatory assignment copyright image of a trademark](https://revisionlegal.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/8504943759_e44ef8af03_b.jpg)
IP Assignments: Nunc Pro Tunc Assignments in Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Law
March 22, 2023 By John DiGiacomo
Like any valuable business asset, patents, trademarks and copyrights can be sold, assigned and licensed. Indeed, assignment and licensing is common with respect to intellectual property. In legal terms, an “assignment” is a transfer of ownership, either full ownership or partial. In basic terms, a nunc pro tunc is a type of assignment that is backdated. Nunc pro tunc is Latin meaning “now for then.”A nunc pro tunc assignment will be signed on a particular date, but parties will deem the assignment to have been granted on some earlier date.
For a Trademark registered on May 1, 2017, an example of how a nunc pro tunc assignment provision might look like this:
Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, ASSIGNOR agrees that ASSIGNOR hereby assigned unto ASSIGNEE nunc pro tunc effective as of October 1, 2020, all right, title and interest in and to the May 1, 2017 trademark described herein … In testimony whereof, ASSIGNOR, has signed this instrument this 1st day of October 2020.”
In this example, the assignment is deemed to have been granted on May 1, 2017, but has an effective date of October 1, 2020.
In business terms, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used where past IP assignments are made verbally or via conduct. In the rush to get IP “to market,” it is not uncommon for assignments to be granted, but not reduced to writing. Nunc pro tunc assignments are also commonly used to bridge gaps in the “chain of title” for IP. This can happen when corporations and/or assets are sold, but proper paperwork is missing. Purchasers believe that they have ownership to certain patents, trademarks, or copyrights, but the missing documents cause “gaps” in the chain of title. These “gaps” can be cured by obtaining a nunc pro tunc assignment from the original owner of the IP. In the same manner, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used as part of settlements for litigation involving claims of patent, trademark and/or copyright infringement or disputes over ownership
For litigation purposes, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used to give a party legal standing to initiate litigation. To have “standing” to initiate litigation, a party must have some ownership interest in the patent, trademark or copyright. However, for courts, “standing” is based on the effective date of the assignment, not the earlier date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment.
However, for other purposes, the earlier assignment date listed in the nunc pro tunc assignment is the credited date. For example, an assignment of a registered trademark must be recorded with the US Patent & Trademark Office (“USPTO”). This is done electronically. The assignment must be uploaded along with the proper recordation form and applicable fee. For the USPTO, the trademark assignment is based on the date designated for the assignment rather than the date of execution of the nunc pro tunc assignment.
So, when should you use a nunc pro tunc assignment for a trademark? The most common situations include:
- When a trademark was previously assigned but not recorded – Sometimes, an assignment of trademark ownership may occur but the paperwork is not properly filed or recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). In this case, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct the oversight and retroactively assign the trademark to the new owner.
- When the original assignment was not effective – A nunc pro tunc assignment can also be used to correct a defective assignment. For example, if the original assignment was not properly executed or lacked essential terms, the nunc pro tunc assignment can be used to correct those issues and make the assignment retroactively effective.
- When there is a change in business structure – A nunc pro tunc assignment may be necessary when there is a change in the business structure of the trademark owner, such as a merger or acquisition. In this case, the new owner may need to retroactively assign the trademark to themselves to ensure that they have proper ownership and control over the trademark.
- When there is a dispute over ownership – If there is a dispute over the ownership of a trademark, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to resolve the issue. This can occur when multiple parties claim ownership of a trademark, or when there is confusion over who actually owns the trademark.
- When the trademark was abandoned – In some cases, a trademark may have been abandoned by the previous owner. If this occurs, a nunc pro tunc assignment may be used to assign ownership to the new owner retroactively. However, it is important to note that there are strict time limits for filing a nunc pro tunc assignment in these cases.
It is important to note that a nunc pro tunc assignment should only be used when there is a genuine need to correct an error or oversight in the assignment of a trademark ownership. It is not a tool to be used to cover up illegal or unethical behavior.
In addition, a nunc pro tunc assignment can be a complex legal process that requires the assistance of an experienced trademark attorney. The attorney can help ensure that the assignment is executed properly and in compliance with all legal requirements.
Contact Revision Legal
For more information, contact the IP and business lawyers at Revision Legal at 231-714-0100.
Put Revision Legal on your side
Understanding a deed of assignment for intellectual property
A deed of transfer is used to change the ownership of intellectual property, a common occurrence in business. Explore how and when to use one.
Find out more about intellectual property basics
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://www.legalzoom.com/sites/lz.com/files/styles/optimized/public/2024-02/ac-llc-cta-04_13.webp?itok=nJ13arEI)
by Brette Sember, J.D.
Brette is a former attorney and has been a writer and editor for more than 25 years. She is the author of more than 4...
Read more...
Updated on: November 24, 2023 · 3 min read
Understanding intellectual property in business
How to transfer intellectual property rights in business, what to include in a deed of assignment, registering new ownership, restrictions on intellectual property transfers.
Most companies have intellectual property as part of their assets, including software, product design, or copyright to white papers. Buying or selling such property is done using a document called a deed of assignment.
![confirmatory assignment copyright Illustrations and graphics surrounding the words "Intellectual Property"](https://s3.amazonaws.com/external_clips/attachments/2400111/original/AdobeStock_91767894.jpg?1551042516)
A large part of what a business consists of may be tied to intellectual property . It's easy to see physical property a company owns, such as a building, office furniture, or inventory, but intellectual property can be more challenging to identify.
Most businesses have intellectual property, or works created by human minds or, in some cases, by computers. Some examples of intellectual property include architectural drawings, ad campaigns, company or product names, inventions, and source code.
Examples of when transfers of intellectual property might happen include when a company is buying another company, when you are setting up an LLC and want to transfer your intellectual property into the company, or when a business buys product rights from another company or individual.
A deed of assignment can be done in one transaction, instead of one transaction for each item of intellectual property, by transferring all ownership rights of all intellectual property detailed in the deed. The document is signed by both the buyer and seller. No payment is required for it to be valid.
A deed of assignment must be in writing and should include:
- The names and addresses of the assignor and assignee
- A description of the program or product for which the rights are being transferred
- A statement that all intellectual property rights to the property are being transferred
- Signatures of the parties and the date of the agreement execution
The deed could also include the following sections, where applicable:
- Consideration, or payment, to be made to the original owner.
- Warranties, or promises that the intellectual property rights being assigned don't infringe on anyone else's intellectual property rights . For example, in a deed regarding the transfer of a copyright, this section could state that the copyrighted work is original and not owned by someone else.
- Indemnification, or promise by the seller to reimburse the assignee if there is some problem with title to the property.
- Future assignments. For example, the agreement could be ongoing, so that anything the assignor creates in the future for this product or program is also transferred to the buyer.
Although a deed of assignment transfers ownership in intellectual property , it does not change the registration of the ownership. The assignee is responsible for handling all registration requirements.
For example, if a patent is transferred via a deed of assignment, the new owner must record the change in ownership with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Similarly, the transfer of a copyright is recorded with the U.S. Copyright Office.
Transfers of intellectual property must comply with U.S. laws. One obvious caveat is that you can't transfer property you don't own. Transfers must also comply with antitrust laws, which are set up to prevent one company from completely dominating an industry.
If intellectual property rights are being transferred overseas, the transfer must comply with Export Administration Regulations and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations , which are designed to protect national security and trade.
The deed of assignment can be a crucial part of a business deal or transaction. You can create a deed of assignment yourself, or you can work with an attorney .
You may also like
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://www.legalzoom.com/sites/lz.com/files/styles/optimized/public/articles/How-to-write-a-will-1.webp?itok=klGuAxSk)
How to Write a Will: A Comprehensive Guide to Will Writing
Writing a will is one of the most important things you can do for yourself and for your loved ones, and it can be done in just minutes. Are you ready to get started?
July 21, 2024 · 11min read
![confirmatory assignment copyright confirmatory assignment copyright](https://www.legalzoom.com/sites/lz.com/files/styles/optimized/public/articles/What-is-POA.webp?itok=5xXSVztG)
What Is a Power of Attorney (POA)? A Comprehensive Guide
Setting up a power of attorney to make your decisions when you can't is a smart thing to do because you never know when you'll need help from someone you trust.
July 28, 2024 · 16min read
![](http://sektorel.online/777/templates/cheerup/res/banner1.gif)
COMMENTS
Assignment/Transfer of Copyright Ownership. Are copyrights transferable? Yes. Like any other property, all or part of the rights in a work may be transferred by the owner to another. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section " Transfer of Copyright ," for a discussion of ownership.
Confirmatory assignments are frequently used where a written assignment already exists, but the parties do not want to disclose that document because it contains sensitive information (e.g. payments, etc.). In addition, they are often used to confirm an 'automatic' assignment (e.g. from an employee to his/her employer).
A copyright assignment agreement is a legal document transferring the ownership and rights of a specific creative work or works. A copyright assignment agreement protects the rights of parties involved by clarifying and providing a record of ownership of a work, especially in the event of a transfer.
These “gaps” can be cured by obtaining a nunc pro tunc assignment from the original owner of the IP. In the same manner, nunc pro tunc assignments are often used as part of settlements for litigation involving claims of patent, trademark and/or copyright infringement or disputes over ownership.
A deed of assignment must be in writing and should include: The names and addresses of the assignor and assignee. A description of the program or product for which the rights are being transferred. A statement that all intellectual property rights to the property are being transferred.
Regardless of the language of an employment agreement, parties often execute confirmatory assignments after the IP is created to avoid any potential issues, including if the initial assignment is held invalid.