Doesn’t include transfer
Kang* and Yang** 2, *Managing Partner of the San Francisco office of Skjerven Morrill MacPherson LLP; Chair of the Firm's Software and Internet Practice Group. Mr. Kang represents technology companies in patent, trademark, trade secret, and IP lawsuits nationwide, and he counsels clients in licensing and patent prosecution. ** J.D. Candidate, Santa Clara University School of Law, 2002; Master of Comparative Law, Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington, 1997; LL.B, National Taiwan University, 1992. (Peter H.* and Jia Ann**, May 2002, “CASE NOTE:DOCTRINE OF INDIVISIBILITY REVIVED? NINTH CIRCUIT CONFIRMS COPYRIGHT EXCLUSIVE LICENSEE HAS NO RIGHT TO TRANSFER LICENSE ABSENT OWNER'S CONSENT: GARDNER V. NIKE, INC.”, 18 Santa Clara Computer & High Tech. L.J. 365, 370-371. Lexis accessed online via KU libraries)
In reaching this conclusion, the court's analysis focused on specific language in 201(d)(2), the so-called "protection and remedies" clause. 40 The second sentence of 201(d)(2) provides that, "the owner of any particular exclusive right is entitled, to the extent of that right, to all of the protection and remedies accorded to the copyright owner by this title." 41 The court interpreted 201(d)(2) as providing only "protection and remedies" to the owner of the exclusive right and not all the "rights" afforded to a copyright owner. 42 According to the court, the term "protection and remedies" includes the right for an exclusive licensee to sue in her own name, but does not include the right to transfer the exclusive license. 43 Furthermore, relying on the principle of statutory construction, the court held that the more specific term of 201(d)(2) prevails over the more general language of 101 and 201(d)(1). 44 Therefore, the court held that 201(d)(1) did not apply to the present case, and thus [*371] 201(d)(2) only provided "protection and remedies" but not the rights. 45