ARTICLE
5 February 2025

Bitcoin Mining Patent Retains Original Inventorship

FH
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP

Contributor

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP is a law firm dedicated to advancing ideas, discoveries, and innovations that drive businesses around the world. From offices in the United States, Europe, and Asia, Finnegan works with leading innovators to protect, advocate, and leverage their most important intellectual property (IP) assets.
In Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed, among other things, the district court's determination that BearBox had not met its burden to establish.
United States Intellectual Property

In Bearbox LLC v. Lancium LLC, No. 2023-1922 (Fed. Cir. January 13, 2025), the Federal Circuit affirmed, among other things, the district court's (1) determination that BearBox had not met its burden to establish sole or joint inventorship of Lancium's U.S. Patent No. 10,608,433 (the "'433 patent") and (2) grant of summary judgment dismissing BearBox's state law conversion claim as preempted by federal patent law.

The '433 patent claims a "behind-the-meter" system connected to a wind farm that mines cryptocurrency when the price of electricity is low and sells power to the energy grid when the price of electricity is high. Bearbox's owner asserted that he should be an inventor on the '433 patent because of a conversation and subsequent email thread he had with Lancium personnel. The Federal Circuit, however, affirmed the district court's determination that Bearbox did not prove inventorship by clear and convincing evidence because the conversation and email thread with Lancium occurred after the '433 patent was filed.

As to BearBox's state law conversion claim, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal because the state law claim, as pleaded, used "patent-like" language that amounted to inventorship and patent infringement causes of action. The Federal Circuit also determined that the preemption finding was appropriate because BearBox sought "patent-like" damages (e.g., disgorgement of profits and royalties) instead of conversion-based damages (e.g., the return or value of the converted property).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More