Connection lost
Server error
Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc. (In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc.) Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A Chapter 11 debtor sought to assume a nonexclusive patent license over the licensor’s objection. The Ninth Circuit, adopting the “hypothetical test,” held that federal patent law prevents assignment without consent, thus barring the debtor from assuming the license under § 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Legal Significance: Established the “hypothetical test” for § 365(c)(1) in the Ninth Circuit, holding that a debtor-in-possession cannot assume an executory contract if applicable law (like patent law) would prohibit assignment to a hypothetical third party, regardless of the debtor’s actual intent to assign.
Perlman v. Catapult Entertainment, Inc. (In re Catapult Entertainment, Inc.) Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Catapult Entertainment, Inc. (“Catapult”) held two nonexclusive patent licenses from Stephen Perlman. In 1996, Catapult filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As part of its reorganization plan, which involved a merger with another company, Catapult filed a motion to assume the Perlman licenses under § 365 of the Bankruptcy Code. Perlman objected, arguing that the licenses were non-assignable under applicable federal patent law. He contended that this non-assignability triggered § 365(c)(1), which prohibits a debtor from assuming such contracts without the licensor’s consent. Catapult argued for an “actual test,” asserting that § 365(c)(1) should not prevent assumption by a debtor-in-possession that did not intend to assign the contract to a different entity. The bankruptcy court and district court permitted Catapult to assume the licenses. Perlman appealed, presenting the Ninth Circuit with the question of which test—“hypothetical” or “actual”—governs the assumption of executory contracts under § 365(c)(1).
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does § 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibit a debtor-in-possession from assuming a nonexclusive patent license without the licensor’s consent when applicable federal patent law would excuse the licensor from accepting performance from a hypothetical third party?
Yes. The court held that the plain language of § 365(c)(1) establishes Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Does § 365(c)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibit a debtor-in-possession from assuming a nonexclusive patent license without the licensor’s consent when applicable federal patent law would excuse the licensor from accepting performance from a hypothetical third party?
Conclusion
This decision solidifies the "hypothetical test" in the Ninth Circuit, significantly limiting Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex e
Legal Rule
Under the "hypothetical test," a debtor-in-possession may not assume an executory contract Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequa
Legal Analysis
The Ninth Circuit adopted the "hypothetical test" for interpreting § 365(c)(1), aligning Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labo
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- The Ninth Circuit adopted the “hypothetical test” for assuming executory contracts