A patent owner and its own IP licensing arm are in dispute over the proceeds of a $200 million patent infringement case.
In 2020, KIP, the licensing arm of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), won $203 million in a case against Samsung over the infringement of a semiconductor patent developed at KAIST.
The university has since claimed that it has yet to receive a dime of the settlement money, and in March KAIST sued Paulina FundingCo, an entity connected to KIP, and KIP’s CEO In Gyoo Kang, blaming a $6 million litigation finance agreement KIP had made with Paulina for the hold up.
In the lawsuit, KAIST alleges that KIP has paid $24 million to Paulina, and that there is another $23 million in an escrow account in US Bank, also a defendant in the case. KAIST claims it will lose its rightful share of the $203 million from the Samsung case if the court does not intervene.
However, Paulina FundingCo claims it should be paid first. “Given that Paulina is a secured creditor, while KAIST is not, the well-settled system for creditor priority would give Paulina the right to collect before KAIST — not the other way around,” the company stated in court filings.
KIP is also asking the court to dismiss KAIST’s claims. KIP argues that the Samsung litigation involved the U.S. patent alone, and that it obtained funding from Paulina only to litigate the U.S. patent. According to KIP, KAIST erroneously believes that the licensing arm needed to discuss matters concerning the U.S. patent under the pair’s agreement.
“Nowhere in the four corners of the business agreement discusses the rights or imposes on KIP any obligations concerning the U.S. patent. Indeed, the business agreement imposes no contractual obligation on KIP as to what KIP or KIPB should do in connection with the patent that KAIST does not own,” the KIP entities claim.
Source: Lexology
