even if the 1993 assignment were valid, it was rescinded by the parties in 1997. Plaintiff contends that in 1997, a dispute arose between Animatronics and ME due to ME’s failure to make payments under the Development Agreement. There is no evidence of a written rescission of the patent assignment or a separate assignment of the patent from ME back to Animatronics. Defendants argue that § 261 requires that the rescission of any patent assignment be in writing. While not speaking to rescissions, § 261 provides that “[applications for patent, patents, or any interest therein, shall be assignable in law by an instrument in writing.” 35 U.S.C. § 261. Federal Circuit case law lends support to defendants’ argument. See Enzo Apa & Son, Inc. v. Geapag A.G., 134 F.3d 1090, 1094 (Fed.Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). MHL however argues that Michigan and
holding in a patent infringement case that plaintiff lacked standing where it held a conditional right to license a patent and enforce license agreements but did not have the right to transfer the patent holding that the assignor of a patent retained substantial rights in the patent and must be added as an indispensable party holding that if property description is to be supplied by writing to which reference is made in deed reference must be adequate to identify writing holding that although a valid patent license may be written verbal or implied an assignment that would allow the assignee to assert standing must be in writing holding plaintiff did not have standing to challenge the validity of an assignment from mers to bac because she was not a party to the assignment and the assignment did not affect her underlying obligation to make timely payments