holding that assignment of patent rights in bankruptcy was not subject to the Assignment of Claims Act because the assignment fell within a recognized exception and did not violate the purposes of the Act
How later courts described this case
- holding that assignment of patent rights in bankruptcy was not subject to the Assignment of Claims Act because the assignment fell within a recognized exception and did not violate the purposes of the Act
- "[Tjhe transfer of the patent in suit and the claim against defendant to Rel-Reeves, and the subsequent transfer back to DCA of the same patent and claim were one continuous judicially supervised transaction, and were not independent and unrelated assignments.”
- “[R]ecent judicial interpretations of the Act ... necessarily consider the types of assignments which the Act sought to eliminate in reaching a decision regarding the validity of the assignment under scrutiny.”
- transfer of patent rights in bankruptcy did not violate the purposes of the Act and was within judicially created exception
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
NICHOLS, Judge,
dissenting:
Respectfully, I dissent. Counsel admitted the case was one of first impression. I do not think the facts are appropriate for a new judge-made exception to the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 203. Defendant was asked to consent and consented to the assignment by DCA to Rel-Reeves. Defendant has a legitimate interest in having its consent likewise asked for return of the claim to DCA. It fears it will lose the benefit of offsets maintainable against Rel-Reeves. The return to DCA cannot legitimately be regarded as involuntary or by operation of law.