- Casam 23-1769.pdf

• Interpretation of an assignment that transfers an “invention” and “continuations” but does not mention “continuations-in-part.”: Absent contextual indications to the contrary, an assignment referencing “continuations” does not unambiguously include continuation-in-part applications; courts should not rewrite the contract to add “continuations-in-part,” particularly given the recognized legal distinction between continuations and continuations-in-part.
• Effect of superseding agreements on earlier IP-assignment provisions.: Where a later settlement supersedes an earlier employment invention-assignment agreement and does not transfer rights back to the inventor, the earlier agreement has no operative effect on ownership, and excluded applications remain with the party who owned them absent an express conveyance.