WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corp.

2017 NY Slip Op 2162, 148 A.D.3d 587, 50 N.Y.S.3d 864

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 23, 2017

Docket3506 651634/13

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 2162 (WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

WiAV Solutions Inc. v. HTC Corp., 2017 NY Slip Op 2162, 148 A.D.3d 587, 50 N.Y.S.3d 864 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about May 18, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court, in a thorough decision, properly determined that none of the three patent licensing agreements that defendant executed with third parties entitled plaintiff to additional payments under the agreement between plaintiff and defendant (see e.g. Ashwood Capital, Inc. v OTG Mgt., Inc., 99 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012]). The court properly rejected plaintiff’s arguments that certain options granted by defendant to those third parties, which were not alleged to be exercised, as well as the ownership status of certain patent rights transferred to the third parties, constituted a “Triggering Event” under the agreement. The court also properly determined that plaintiff’s unsupported allegations of the existence of other Triggering Events failed to state a claim and that further discovery was not warranted (id.).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskow-itz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about May 18, 2016, which granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court, in a thorough decision, properly determined that none of the three patent licensing agreements that defendant executed with third parties entitled plaintiff to additional payments under the agreement between plaintiff and defendant (see e.g. Ashwood Capital, Inc. v OTG Mgt., Inc., 99 AD3d 1 [1st Dept 2012]). The court properly rejected plaintiff’s arguments that certain options granted by defendant to those third parties, which were not alleged to be exercised, as well as the ownership status of certain patent rights transferred to the third parties, constituted a “Triggering Event” under the agreement. The court also properly determined that plaintiff’s unsupported allegations of the existence of other Triggering Events failed to state a claim and that further discovery was not warranted (id.).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Richter, Moskow-itz, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 2162, 148 A.D.3d 587, 50 N.Y.S.3d 864, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wiav-solutions-inc-v-htc-corp-nyappdiv-2017.