In Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., which category describes a plaintiff who holds the right to sue but not the underlying patent rights?

In Morrow v. Microsoft Corp., which category describes a plaintiff who holds the right to sue but not the underlying patent rights?

• A. Category 1: holds all legal rights to the patent; standing.
• B. Category 2: holds exclusionary rights but not all substantial rights; standing only with joinder.
• C. Category 3: holds less than all substantial rights; lacks injury; no standing; cannot be cured.
• D. Category 4: has no rights to sue.

Answer: (C)

To have standing in patent infringement suits, a plaintiff must hold the patent rights in a way that provides a legally enforceable injury to sue—the rights must amount to all substantial rights, or the plaintiff must join with the owner who holds them. In Morrow v. Microsoft, four categories describe how much rights a would-be plaintiff actually has. The scenario given describes someone who can sue but does not own the underlying patent rights. That situation means they have less than all substantial rights and, critically, they lack the actual injury required to support standing. Because the injury isn’t present and the rights are incomplete, the plaintiff has no standing, and this cannot be cured by later action. Hence, this fits the category where the plaintiff holds less than all substantial rights, lacks injury, has no standing, and cannot be cured. The other categories describe situations where the plaintiff either holds all legal rights to the patent (clear standing), or holds exclusionary rights but would have standing only if they joinder with the patent owner, or has no rights to sue at all. Those scenarios do not match the described situation as precisely as the category above.

To have standing in patent infringement suits, a plaintiff must hold the patent rights in a way that provides a legally enforceable injury to sue—the rights must amount to all substantial rights, or the plaintiff must join with the owner who holds them. In Morrow v. Microsoft, four categories describe how much rights a would-be plaintiff actually has.

The scenario given describes someone who can sue but does not own the underlying patent rights. That situation means they have less than all substantial rights and, critically, they lack the actual injury required to support standing. Because the injury isn’t present and the rights are incomplete, the plaintiff has no standing, and this cannot be cured by later action. Hence, this fits the category where the plaintiff holds less than all substantial rights, lacks injury, has no standing, and cannot be cured.

The other categories describe situations where the plaintiff either holds all legal rights to the patent (clear standing), or holds exclusionary rights but would have standing only if they joinder with the patent owner, or has no rights to sue at all. Those scenarios do not match the described situation as precisely as the category above.