Which case held that a bare assignment of the right to sue for copyright infringement is invalid because the assignee lacks exclusive rights?

Which case held that a bare assignment of the right to sue for copyright infringement is invalid because the assignee lacks exclusive rights?

• A. Silvers v. Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc.
• B. Dawn Donut v. Hart's Food Stores
• C. ICE Gapardis Health & Beauty, Inc.
• D. Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.

Answer: (A)

In copyright matters, the right to sue for infringement isn’t something that can be severed from the actual ownership of the exclusive rights in the work. To have standing to sue, you must hold the exclusive rights themselves or hold a license that conveys those exclusive rights. A bare assignment of only the enforcement right to sue, without transferring the underlying exclusive rights, does not give the assignee real ownership of the work’s rights and therefore cannot support a valid infringement claim. In this case, the court held that such a naked transfer of the right to sue is invalid because the assignee lacks the exclusive rights needed to bring suit. The enforcement right alone isn’t enough; without transferring the core rights, the party cannot step into the shoes of the copyright owner for purposes of litigation. The result is that the assignment does not create standing to sue, since the assignor retains the actual ownership of the rights. Other listed cases don’t address this specific principle about bare enforcement-right assignments in copyright, so they don’t fit the scenario described.

In copyright matters, the right to sue for infringement isn’t something that can be severed from the actual ownership of the exclusive rights in the work. To have standing to sue, you must hold the exclusive rights themselves or hold a license that conveys those exclusive rights. A bare assignment of only the enforcement right to sue, without transferring the underlying exclusive rights, does not give the assignee real ownership of the work’s rights and therefore cannot support a valid infringement claim.

In this case, the court held that such a naked transfer of the right to sue is invalid because the assignee lacks the exclusive rights needed to bring suit. The enforcement right alone isn’t enough; without transferring the core rights, the party cannot step into the shoes of the copyright owner for purposes of litigation. The result is that the assignment does not create standing to sue, since the assignor retains the actual ownership of the rights.

Other listed cases don’t address this specific principle about bare enforcement-right assignments in copyright, so they don’t fit the scenario described.