VDF Futureceuticals, Inc. v. Stiffel Laboratories, Inc.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment in action alleging that defendants violated terms of licensing agreement calling for defendants to pay plaintiff royalties under licensing agreement to market CoffeeBerry-based skin care products. While plaintiff argued that defendants had engineering unauthorized assignment of license by purchasing stock of original licensee in order to avoid paying plaintiff portion of royalties owed to it, license agreement did not forbid defendants from obtaining control of original licensee. Moreover, second basis for appeal (i.e., that plaintiff should receive portion of $8.5 that defendants paid for licensee’s stock because portion of purchase price represented advanced royalties owed to plaintiff) was without basis, since record reflected that $8.5 million represented actual purchase price of stock, as opposed to sale of CoffeeBerry products.