CoreBrace found out that Star used third-party contractors to make the licensed products, which Star would subsequently use. CoreBrace terminated the license and then sued for patent infringement and breach of the agreement.

Star moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. In granting Star’s motion, the district court reasoned that a patent licensee’s right to “make” an article includes the right to have others do the work connected with the product. CoreBrace appealed.
One of CoreBrace’s arguments was that it retained the “have made” rights, which were not expressly granted and, therefore, retained by CoreBrace under the terms of the license.


--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2021-02-10 18:46:58 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

n general, a "have made" right, which is derived from the term "to make" set forth in 35 U.S.C. $ 271(a), permits a licensee to have an unlicensed third party make a licensed product for the licensee. There are no magic words to grant a licensee "have made” rights.

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2021-02-10 18:50:42 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Have Made Rights. The licenses in Section 3.1 above shall include the right to have contract manufacturers and foundries manufacture Lumentum Licensed Products for any member of the Lumentum Group (including private label or OEM versions of such products) solely within the Lumentum Field, and are not intended to include foundry or contract manufacturing activities that any member of the Lumentum Group may undertake on behalf of Third Parties, whether directly or indirectly.
https://www.lawinsider.com/clause/have-made-rights

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 17 hrs (2021-02-10 19:00:32 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Have Made Rights. The licenses granted to HBIO in Sections 4.1 and 4.2 above shall include the right to have Third Parties manufacture and distribute products of HBIO, subject to the distribution rights granted to HART under the Product Distribution Agreement.
(en el sitio lawinsider hay más ejemplos que brindan contexto)

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 23 hrs (2021-02-11 01:02:41 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

La estructura es similar a la siguiente:
I will have my hair cut tomorrow.

Licensees have the right to have "the product" made by a Third Party
"derecho de mandarlo a hacer" (según especificaciones) por un tercero pero dada la formalidad de un texto legal, la traducción literal queda muy "pobre".

--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 1 day 24 mins (2021-02-11 01:57:20 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Muy interesante el artículo: "The inherency of the patent right to have made" article que menciona el caso CoreBrace vs Star que genera jurisprudencia.PDF (2 págiinas)
Se puede descargar de: https://www.jmbm.com/
extracto:
Jun 17, 2009 — The Federal Circuit found that the right to have made is inherent in the right to make based on its interpretation of Utah contractual law, the law of the state where the case was brought, after considering a Court of Claims case, Carey v. United States, 326 F.



--------------------------------------------------
Note added at 2 days 2 hrs (2021-02-12 04:29:30 GMT)
--------------------------------------------------

Recuerda que inicialmente no había contexto. Hubo que buscar dicho contexto.
“License to make” includes an inherent right to “have made”
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently held that a license to make a patented article includes an inherent right to have a third party make the article absent express language to the contrary. CoreBrace LLC v. Star Seismic LLC, Case No. 08-1502 (Fed. Cir., May 22, 2009) (Lourie, J.).
CoreBrace owns a patent with claims directed to a brace used in the fabrication of earthquake-resistant steel-framed buildings. Star Seismic (Star) received a non-exclusive license to the patent to “make, use and sell” licensed products. The license also stated that Star cold not “assign, sublicense, or otherwise transfer” its rights to any party except an affiliated, parent or subsidiary company. CoreBrace also reserved “all rights not expressly granted to [Star].” However, the agreement gave Star ownership for any technological improvements “by a third party whose services have been contracted by [Star].”
CoreBrace found out that Star used third-party contractors to make the licensed products, which Star would subsequently use. CoreBrace terminated the license and then sued for patent infringement and breach of the agreement.
Star moved to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim. In granting Star’s motion, the district court reasoned that a patent licensee’s right to “make” an article includes the right to have others do the work connected with the product. CoreBrace appealed.
One of CoreBrace’s arguments was that it retained the “have made” rights, which were not expressly granted and, therefore, retained by CoreBrace under the terms of the license.
Relying on the Court of Claims decision in Carey, the Court held that the right to “make, use, and sell” a product inherently includes the right to have the product made by a third party, absent a clear indication of intent to the contrary. The Court found that Carey held that “a license to produce, use and sell ‘is not restricted to production by the licensee personally or use by him personally or sales by him personally....
In reviewing the terms of the agreement, the Court failed to find any express language limiting the “have made” right.
https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=3f324999-2658...