Cases Citing Bayh-Dole Act 35 U.S.C. § 200-212
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
Statute citedTitleDocument URLFormerly Cited AsPrimary CiteParallel CitesCourt or JurisdictionDocket Number(s)DateTypeNOD TopicsDocument SummaryTerms
2
§ 200Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washingtonhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I06092fd0207411e79de0d9b9354e8e59/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D1%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=1&docFamilyGuid=I06f8e700207411e79602e061f24d30eb&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0684 Fed.Appx. 985, 988+Fed.Cir.(Dist.Col.)(NO.2016-2320)Apr. 12, 2017CasePATENTS - Jurisdiction. State did not waive its immunity by entering into arrangements controlled by federal law and reviewable only in federal court.
Ali contended that UMass waived its sovereign immunity when it accepted funds from the federal government under the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
12 (2012), commonly known as the Bayh-Dole Act, in support of certain research that led to the issuance of the patents)
3
§ 200Hochendoner v. Genzyme Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Idbb78507d37c11e4a795ac035416da91/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D2%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=2&docFamilyGuid=Idbb7850bd37c11e4a795ac035416da91&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.095 F.Supp.3d 15, 16+D.Mass.
(NO.CIV.A. 11-10739, CIV.A. 13-11336)
Mar. 25, 2015CaseCOMMERCIAL LAW - Warranties. Patients failed to state plausible claim that drug manufacturer offered implied warranty that lower dosage would be as efficacious.
In general.Bayh-Dole Act, which provides protections against nonuse and unreasonable use of publicly funded inventions, does not create a private right of action. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200 et seq)
.[6]13 Action 13I Grounds and Conditions Precedent 13 3 k. Statutory rights of action.Federal courts infer a private)
4
§ 200Bausch & Lomb Incorporated v. Vitamin Health, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If67aa71091de11e792fdd763512bbe26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D3%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=3&docFamilyGuid=If7ff243091de11e78661f4abc9c5ca87&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02014 WL 12730510, *2+W.D.N.Y.(NO.13-CV-6498)Sep. 18, 2014CaseThis patent infringement action arises under the Patent Laws of the United States, and involves claims of false advertising and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of...
of its licensees sought to sue for patent infringement.''Nutrition 21, 930 F.2d at 866 FN2. In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212. The Bayh-Dole Act was passed ''to promote the utilization of inventions arising from federally supported research'' and to ''ensure that)
5
§ 200In re NeuroGrafix (%2C360) Patent Litigationhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Idc796d96b35e11e3b58f910794d4f75e/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D4%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=4&docFamilyGuid=Idc796d97b35e11e3b58f910794d4f75e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.05 F.Supp.3d 146, 146+D.Mass.(NO.MDL 13-2432-RGS)Mar. 24, 2014CasePATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. License agreement granted research foundation exclusive license to patent teaching technology for enhancing neural magnetic resonance imaging...
related to it under Bayh–Dole Act, and thus exclusive license to licensee was valid, as would support licensee's standing to bring patent infringement action. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200)
291 Patents 291X Patents Enumerated 291 2091 k. In general; utility.(Formerly 291k328(2)US Patent 5,560,360 US Patent 5,706,813. Cited.Andrew D)
6
§ 200Carik v. United States Department of Health and Human Serviceshttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6c86434d575211e3a341ea44e5e1f25f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D5%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=5&docFamilyGuid=Id311a942575a11e3b48bea39e86d4142&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.04 F.Supp.3d 41, 47+Med & Med GD (CCH) P 304,697, 304697+D.D.C.(NO.CV 12-272 (BAH))Nov. 27, 2013CaseHEALTH - Drugs. Patients who suffered from rare disease lacked standing to sue government agencies in connection with prescription drug shortage.
Act Drugs developed, at least in part, with federal funding are subject to what is commonly referred to as the Bayh–Dole Act (''the Act''), )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq)
. The Act is designed ''to ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions to meet the needs)
7
§ 200Schubert v. Genzyme Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6b855b44191b11e3a98ec867961a22de/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D6%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=6&docFamilyGuid=I6b855b45191b11e3a98ec867961a22de&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02013 WL 4776286, *6D.Utah(NO.2:12CV587DAK)Sep. 04, 2013CaseThis matter is before the court on Defendant Genzyme Corporation's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Regarding Plaintiff's Claim for Negligent Manufacturing. Genzyme seeks an...
manufacture and distribute Fabrazyme in the United States and Plaintiff contends that the BayhDole Act requires Genzyme to make Fabrazyme ''reasonably accessible to the public.'' )
35 U.S.C. § 200(b)(5)
)However, even if Genzyme's failure to produce sufficient quantities of Fabrazyme was deemed to be an affirmative act of misfeasance)
8
§ 200Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washingtonhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5fc16f7ec84411e28501bda794601919/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D7%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=7&docFamilyGuid=I5fc16f7fc84411e28501bda794601919&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0967 F.Supp.2d 1367, 1382+D.Or.(NO.3:12-CV-01764-SI)May 28, 2013CasePATENTS - Immunity. University of Massachusetts was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in patent dispute.
the patents-in-suit, any patents resulting from that funding fall within the purview of the Bayh–Dole University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
. (''Bayh–Dole Act'' or ''Act''). With respect to the patents-in-suit, Ali argues that UMass ''made a clear declaration)
9
§ 200Collins v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I83a0bc4bd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D8%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=8&docFamilyGuid=I83a0bc4cd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3848631, *2+E.D.Tex.(NO.2:09-CV-219-TJW)Aug. 29, 2011CasePending before the Court is Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., and Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s (collectively,...
Lab (''NRL'' or ''Navy'') and that the UT System failed to follow the required transfer protocol on government-funded inventions under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
. The Bayh–Dole Act requires title to inventions flowing from government-funded research to remain with the government in certain)
10
§ 200Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I8708f1ee8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D9%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=9&docFamilyGuid=I8708f1ef8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0131 S.Ct. 2188, 2193+563 U.S. 776, 782+ 180 L.Ed.2d 1, 1+ 79 USLW 4407, 4407+ 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761, 1761+ 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6795, 6795+ 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8175, 8175+ 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1069, 1069+ 68 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 617, 617+U.S.(NO.09-1159)June 06, 2011CasePATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Bayh–Dole Act did not automatically confer title to federally-funded HIV detection inventions in federal contractors.
arising from federally supported research,''''promote collaboration between commercial concerns and nonprofit organizations,'' and ''ensure that the Government obtains sufficient rights in federally supported inventions.'' )
35 U.S.C. § 200)
. To achieve these aims, the Act allocates rights in federally funded ''subject invention[s]'' between the Federal Government and federal contractors (''any)
11
§ 200Picture Patents, LLC v. Aeropostale, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3198697c6bf011e0b63e897ab6fa6920/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D10%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=10&docFamilyGuid=I3198697d6bf011e0b63e897ab6fa6920&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0788 F.Supp.2d 127, 139S.D.N.Y.(NO.07 CIV. 5567 JGK)Apr. 18, 2011CasePATENTS - Computers and Electronics. Patents related to pictorial user interface belonged to inventor's former employer.
at 841–42, 848–49.FN6. In addition to its discussion of statute of limitations issues, Roche concerned the construction of the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq)
. See Roche, 583 F.3d at 844–45. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider this portion of the decision)
12
§ 200Western Digital Technologies, Inc. v. Board of Regents of the University of Texas Systemhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iaf80b5671efa11e088699d6fd571daba/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D11%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=11&docFamilyGuid=Iaf80b5681efa11e088699d6fd571daba&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 97785, *2N.D.Cal.(NO.C 10-3595 SBA)Jan. 12, 2011CasePlaintiffs Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (''Western Digital'') and Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc. (''Hitachi'') (collectively, ''Plaintiffs'') bring this action for...
Board of Regents was required (but failed) to comply with the applicable transfer protocol for government-funded inventions set forth under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200, et seq)
.Id.The Texas Motion to Dismiss has been fully briefed and is awaiting adjudication by Judge Ward.Also pending before)
13
§ 200Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine v. Hoganhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3af20609ee4811df88699d6fd571daba/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D12%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=12&docFamilyGuid=I3af2060cee4811df88699d6fd571daba&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0918 N.Y.S.2d 400, 40029 Misc.3d 1220(A), 1220(A) 2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 51908(U), 51908(U)N.Y.Sup.(NO.439-10)Nov. 03, 2010CasePhysicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (''PCRM'') brings this special proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, challenging the denial of a Freedom of Information Law...
FOIL; and if disclosed, would cause substantial injury to the PI's competitive efforts FN9. In this connection, OMH notes that under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 USC § 200 et seq)
., recipients of federal funding may obtain exclusive rights in inventions derived therefrom for the purpose of further development and commercialization)
14
§ 200The Central Institute for Experimental Animals v. The Jackson Laboratoryhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I999c8ca6027f11dfa7e0c40c26bf1b92/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D13%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=13&docFamilyGuid=I999c8ca7027f11dfa7e0c40c26bf1b92&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02010 WL 147935, *1+N.D.Cal.(NO.C-08-05568 RMW)Jan. 12, 2010CasePATENTS - Biotechnology. Nonprofit research institution did not have standing to bring patent infringement counterclaim against scientific research corporation.
conveying to institution a right to sublicense the mouse, which would have conveyed to institution a license covering the mouse. West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 3 )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
207 Joseph Diamante Kenneth E. Keller Michael David Lisi Ronald Marc Daignault, for Plaintiff.Chelsea A Loughran Howard Alan Slavitt Michael A)
15
§ 200Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I45a6221df9c611de9988d233d23fe599/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D14%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=14&docFamilyGuid=I45a6221ef9c611de9988d233d23fe599&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0591 F.3d 876, 88193 U.S.P.Q.2d 1361, 13617th Cir.(Wis.)(NO.06-3901, 08-1351)Jan. 05, 2010CasePATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Joint patent owner did not retain federal statutory right to freely license its interest after entering license agreement.
inventions arising from the jointly sponsored research to the Foundation. Alternatively, the Foundation claimed it had title to the compounds under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200 et seq)
., because federal funds had been used in the research and development of the compounds.Relations between Xenon and the Foundation)
16
§ 200Delano Farms Co. v. California Table Grape Com'nhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I2d89e822c8b211dea82ab9f4ee295c21/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D15%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=15&docFamilyGuid=I2d89e823c8b211dea82ab9f4ee295c21&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02009 WL 3586056, *15+E.D.Cal.
(NO.1:07-CV1610 OWWSMS)
Oct. 27, 2009CaseGOVERNMENT - Immunity. United States' sovereign immunity barred grape growers' preemptive declaratory relief action.
Discretion.In addition to challenging the validity of the Patents themselves, Plaintiffs allege that the USDA's licensing activities violate provisions of the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
. Defendants argue that these licensing claims are barred by Section 701(a)(2) of the APA, which precludes application of)
17
§ 200Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ife6474f0adf611deb08de1b7506ad85b/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D16%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=16&docFamilyGuid=Ife6474f1adf611deb08de1b7506ad85b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0583 F.3d 832, 834+249 Ed. Law Rep. 612, 612+ 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, 1442+Fed.Cir.(Cal.)
(NO.2008-1509, 2008-1510)
Sep. 30, 2009CasePATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. University was not a bona fide purchaser of inventor's assignment under patent law.
Dole Act is to regulate relationships of small business and nonprofit grantees with the government, not between grantees and the inventors who work for them. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
202[25]95 Contracts 95I Requisites and Validity 95I(F) Legality of Object and of Consideration 95 115 Restraint of Trade or)
18
§ 200Network Signatures, Inc. v. Citibank, N.A.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I683cde99cb9811ddbc7bf97f340af743/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D17%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=17&docFamilyGuid=I683d0580cb9811ddbc7bf97f340af743&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02008 WL 5216032, *2+C.D.Cal.
(NO.SACV08-0718DOC(RNBX))
Dec. 04, 2008CaseKristee Hopkins, Courtroom Clerk Before the Court is a ''Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Counterclaims and Motion to Strike Eleventh Through Thirteenth...
terminating the License, respectively. [Counterclaim ¶¶ 58-102.] Network moves to dismiss these counterclaims contending that they are all ''predicated upon the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 [but] there is no private right of action under the Bayh-Dole Act that gives rise to the claims.''[Mot. at)
19
§ 200Amgen, Inc. v. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I81050b6e936e11ddb7e583ba170699a5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D18%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=18&docFamilyGuid=I81050b6f936e11ddb7e583ba170699a5&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0581 F.Supp.2d 160, 225D.Mass.(NO.CIV A 05-12237-WGY)Oct. 02, 2008CasePATENTS - Drugs. Patent for production of recombinant erythropoietin was not invalid as anticipated by prior patent.
Congress could also pass legislation augmenting or undermining incentives for innovation that affect the value of drug patents.See, e.g., Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 (permitting public universities to enter into exclusive license agreements with private companies); Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, Pub.L)
20
§ 200University of Pittsburgh v. Townsendhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id5a85fba7e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D19%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=19&docFamilyGuid=Id5a85fbb7e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0542 F.3d 513, 521237 Ed. Law Rep. 43, 43 28 IER Cases 218, 2186th Cir.(Tenn.)(NO.07-6062)Sep. 09, 2008CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. Doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll statutes of limitations for university's tort and contract claims.
prices ranging from $1 million to $1.3 million.FN1. The Bayh–Dole Act, also known as the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
211, provides universities, small businesses, and non-profit organizations with intellectual property control over their inventions arising from federal government-funded research)
21
§ 200In re Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Idd62660ad37511dcb6a3a099756c05b7/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D20%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=20&docFamilyGuid=Idd62660bd37511dcb6a3a099756c05b7&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0516 F.3d 1003, 100785 U.S.P.Q.2d 1843, 1843Fed.Cir.(Cal.)(NO.854)Feb. 01, 2008CasePATENTS - Writs. Writ of mandamus was not warranted on ground of patent holder's alleged lack of standing in infringement action.
would grant the writ to resolve the issue.The Bayh-Dole Act The district court held that ''the legal requirements of the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212, mandated that Stanford be given a superior right to retain title to the patents.''The court ruled that because of Bayh)
22
§ 200Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icaa06602d66611dc8dba9deb08599717/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D21%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=21&docFamilyGuid=Icaa06603d66611dc8dba9deb08599717&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0263 Fed.Appx. 865, 865+87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1863, 1863+Fed.Cir.
(NO.2007-1026, 2007-1033)
Jan. 29, 2008CaseA combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Cross Appellant. The...
panel left the impression that it was giving away this court's jurisdiction over a broad swath of claims potentially arising from the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 While non-precedential, the panel's opinion nonetheless unnecessarily suggests that this court's jurisdiction to review these cases is limited. I respectfully)
23
§ 200Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib124255882e511dcbd4c839f532b53c5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D22%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=22&docFamilyGuid=Ib124255982e511dcbd4c839f532b53c5&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0252 Fed.Appx. 319, 319+Fed.Cir.
(NO.2007-1026, 2007-1033)
Oct. 24, 2007CasePATENTS - Appeals. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction over appeal in case that did not arise under federal patent law.
providing Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit exclusive jurisdiction of appeal from a case arising under federal patent law. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1295(a) )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200 et seq)
.[2]170B Federal Courts 170BIV Cases ''Arising Under'' Federal Law; Federal-Question Jurisdiction 170BIV(E) Objections, Proceedings, and Determination 170B)
24
§ 200Analytica of Branford, Inc. v. Fennhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I44ccf08142f311dcab5dc95700b89bde/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D23%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=23&docFamilyGuid=I44ccf08242f311dcab5dc95700b89bde&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02007 WL 2221436, *2D.Conn.(NO.03:96-CV-00736CFD)July 27, 2007CaseThis action arises out of a dispute over the ownership and licensing of a chemical mass spectometry invention and the patent for that invention, which issued as United States...
him, arguing that he is the rightful owner of the ′538 patent, and that Analytica's claims against him are preempted by the Bayh–Doyle Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
.3 At oral argument, Fenn's counsel conceded that these arguments are precluded by this court's holding, affirmed by the Second)
25
§ 200Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6052e001eca311dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D24%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=24&docFamilyGuid=I6052e002eca311dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0487 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1103+N.D.Cal.(NO.C 05-04158 MHP)Apr. 16, 2007CasePATENTS - Limitations. Competitor's claim as patent licensee was entitled to traditional shield from statute of limitations-based attack.
result of the government-funded research, does not alter the general rule that title to a patent vests in the inventor or the designated assignee. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200 et seq)
.[28]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(F) Government Rights and Duties as to Inventions 291 1532 Inventions)
26
§ 200Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I0ea7129fecce11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D25%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=25&docFamilyGuid=I0ea712a0ecce11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02007 WL 1119193, *1N.D.Cal.(NO.C 05-04158 MHP)Apr. 16, 2007CaseOn February 23, 2007 this court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (''plaintiff'' or ''Stanford'')...
by Roche. Id. at *15.However, the court further held that Holodniy had no interest to assign to Cetus based on the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. sections 200)
et seq., and therefore the assignment provision of the agreement was void as it applied to the patents-in-suit. Id. The)
27
§ 200Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icc326ce5e21c11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D26%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=26&docFamilyGuid=Icc326ce6e21c11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0482 F.3d 1347, 1348+82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1293+Fed.Cir.(Ala.)(NO.2006-1307)Apr. 03, 2007CasePATENTS - Certificate of Correction. Certificate of correction was invalid for impermissible broadening of claims.
grant, retained title to the patent and his exclusive license to licensee was valid; thus, inventor and licensee had standing to bring patent infringement action. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
212[3]291 Patents 291IV Patent Applications and Proceedings 291IV(G) Postissuance Proceedings 291IV(G)1 In General 291 1183 k. Certificate of)
28
§ 200Pilley v. U.S.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Idf277a37842e11dbab489133ffb377e0/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D27%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=27&docFamilyGuid=Idf277a38842e11dbab489133ffb377e0&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.074 Fed.Cl. 489, 495Fed.Cl.(NO.05-382 C)Nov. 30, 2006CasePATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. Government acquired license under patent rights clause of government contract.
merit in Plaintiff's argument that the cited cases are no longer applicable because FAR 52.227–11 has its foundation in the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 (2000), which effected a change in law regarding how the federal government secures a license under a government contract. Congress passed)
29
§ 200Fenn v. Yale Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id5710a7ceb0511daa223cd6b838f54f9/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D28%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=28&docFamilyGuid=Id5710a7deb0511daa223cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0184 Fed.Appx. 21, 21+213 Ed. Law Rep. 156, 156+2nd Cir.(Conn.)(NO.05-2663-CV)May 18, 2006CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. NIH did not decide that faculty member, not university, owned patent by accepting patent license form from faculty member.
itself from litigation by accepting license form from faculty member did not support any inference that NIH had determined faculty member actually owned the patent. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200 et seq)
.,202(c, d)Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Christopher F. Droney, Judge).AFTER)
30
§ 200Madey v. Duke Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7883b2d2974711daa20eccddde63d628/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D29%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=29&docFamilyGuid=I7883d9b0974711daa20eccddde63d628&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0413 F.Supp.2d 601, 605+79 U.S.P.Q.2d 1877, 1877+M.D.N.C.(NO.1:97CV01170)Jan. 31, 2006CasePATENTS - Government Research. Fact issue existed as to whether university's patent infringement was authorized by government research grants.
contends that the Government has a license to practice or have practiced on its behalf the '103 and '994 Patents under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200, et seq)
., because the inventions described in the '103 and '994 Patents were originally developed as part of Government-sponsored research. Duke)
31
§ 200Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/If1f3a11fe36111dbb035bac3a32ef289/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D30%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=30&docFamilyGuid=If1f3a120e36111dbb035bac3a32ef289&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02006 WL 4448613, *5+N.D.Ala.(NO.CV-00-2430-VEH)Jan. 13, 2006CaseBefore the court are four motions for summary judgment, filed by the plaintiffs, Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. (''CAPS''), and Gerald Buckberg; and two motions for...
on the argument that Dr. Buckberg failed to perfect his title to the invention due to his failure to comply with the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
12, the related agency regulations, and the requirements in the NIH's waiver of patent rights that Buckberg execute a license in favor)
32
§ 200Therien v. Trustees of University of Pennsylvaniahttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I139c8271852111daa20eccddde63d628/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D31%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=31&docFamilyGuid=I139c8272852111daa20eccddde63d628&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02006 WL 83448, *1+E.D.Pa.(NO.CIV.A. 04-4786)Jan. 10, 2006CasePlaintiff, Dr. Michael J. Therien, brings this action against the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania (''Penn''), alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty,...
Notice of Removal ¶ 12.) Penn claimed that ''[w]ithout expressly stating so, this Complaint claims a breach of the obligations of the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200)
et seq., which provides the statutory basis for technology transfer practices and obligations with respect to inventions discovered with federal funding.''Id)
33
§ 200Rutgers Council of AAUP Chapters v. Rutgers, The State Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icbe58e5340dd11dab072a248d584787d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D32%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=32&docFamilyGuid=Icbe5b53040dd11dab072a248d584787d&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0884 A.2d 821, 824381 N.J.Super. 63, 67 178 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2366, 2366 203 Ed. Law Rep. 273, 273N.J.Super.A.D.(NO.A-4837-03T1)Oct. 20, 2005CaseEDUCATION - Labor and Employment. Amendment to patent policy regarding prompt disclosure of discoveries was not subject to mandatory negotiation.
strength and expansion of our national economy. In 1980, Congress passed the Patent and Trademark Act Amendments, commonly referred to as the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
to 212, to provide federal funding for academic research. The statute was ''enacted to foster commercial development of government funded research.''Platzer)
34
§ 200Third Wave Technologies, Inc. v. Stratagene Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I96be0fdc1fde11da9bcc85e7f8e2f4cd/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D33%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=33&docFamilyGuid=I96be0fdd1fde11da9bcc85e7f8e2f4cd&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02005 WL 2148542, *1W.D.Wis.(NO.04-C-680-C)Sep. 02, 2005CaseOn June 22, 2005, defendant Stratagene Corporation filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing, alleging that plaintiff Third Wave Technologies, Inc., lacks standing to bring a...
it because it does not own U.S. Patent Nos. 6,090,543 and 6,348,314 ('543 patent and '314 patent) Defendant argued that under the Bayh-Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212, the University of Wisconsin or the federal government is the rightful owner of both patents. I denied defendant's motion to dismiss)
35
§ 200Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownleehttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ieb5d44028bc011d99a6fdc806bf1638e/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D34%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=34&docFamilyGuid=I4620551d334e11d98b61a35269fc5f88&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0389 F.3d 1243, 1243+73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1357, 1357+Fed.Cir.(NO.03-1512)Nov. 10, 2004CaseDisclosure of inventionPATENTS - Defense Contracts. Contractor forfeited rights to invention developed under contract with Army.
within two months after invention was disclosed to contractor personnel responsible for patent matters, entitling government to take title to the invention under the FAR. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200)
48 C.F.R. § 52.227–11(c)(1), (d)[2]316H Public Contracts 316HIX Performance or Breach 316H 357 Decisions of Contracting)
36
§ 200Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownleehttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ieb5d44028bc011d99a6fdc806bf1638e/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D35%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=35&docFamilyGuid=I4620551d334e11d98b61a35269fc5f88&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0389 F.3d 1243, 1243+73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1357, 1357+Fed.Cir.(NO.03-1512)Nov. 10, 2004CaseForfeiture of inventionPATENTS - Defense Contracts. Contractor forfeited rights to invention developed under contract with Army.
within two months after invention was disclosed to contractor personnel responsible for patent matters, entitling government to take title to the invention under the FAR. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200)
48 C.F.R. § 52.227–11(c)(1), (d)[2]316H Public Contracts 316HIX Performance or Breach 316H 357 Decisions of Contracting)
37
§ 200Fenn v. Yale Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I8e699327542f11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D36%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=36&docFamilyGuid=Ie67cc662482f11d9a5bfc0e3c4d1ea15&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0393 F.Supp.2d 133, 133+204 Ed. Law Rep. 88, 88+D.Conn.
(NO.CIV.A.3:96 CV 1647, CIV.A.3:96 CV 736 (C, CIV.A.3:96 CV 990 (C)
Sep. 29, 2004CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. University's state law claims against former faculty member who claimed patent rights were not preempted by Bayh-Dole Act.
13I Grounds and Conditions Precedent 13 3 k. Statutory rights of action.No private cause of action exists to enforce provisions of Bayh-Dole Act. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 200 et seq)
.[7]170B Federal Courts 170BVI Controversies Between Citizens of Different States; Diversity Jurisdiction 170BVI(B) Particular Cases, Contexts, and Questions)
38
§ 200Madey v. Duke Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I56fe8260542a11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D37%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=37&docFamilyGuid=If955c17410a711d9bde8ee3d49ead4ec&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0336 F.Supp.2d 583, 589+M.D.N.C.(NO.1:97CV01170)Sep. 20, 2004CasePATENTS - Experimental Use. University using patented laser technology failed to establish experimental use defense.
infringement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1498 1 Second, Duke asserts what it characterizes as the ''government license defense.'' Duke claims under the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212, that because ''essentially all of Duke's allegedly infringing activities consist of research being conducted either pursuant to government research grants or)
39
§ 200University Of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id3ab9dad89f611d9b6ea9f5a173c4523/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D38%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=38&docFamilyGuid=Ic2b5f8d56e3411d88589f4fe607fc3c6&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0358 F.3d 916, 929+185 Ed. Law Rep. 122, 122+ 69 U.S.P.Q.2d 1886, 1886+Fed.Cir.(N.Y.)(NO.03-1304)Feb. 13, 2004CasePATENTS - Drugs. Patent for method of creating anti-inflammatory drug was invalid for lack of written description.
public,'' and that:Congress has determined that licensing of academia's inventions to industry is the best way to bring groundbreaking inventions to the public.See )
35 U.S.C. § 200)
By vesting in universities the patent rights to their federally funded research, the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980 encouraged ''private industry to)
40
§ 200Fenn v. Yale Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ia79e91d4540f11d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D39%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=39&docFamilyGuid=I42c343a0ebb511d78356c7ed19fbe0aa&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0283 F.Supp.2d 615, 622182 Ed. Law Rep. 229, 229D.Conn.
(NO.CIV.A.3:96CV1647 CFD)
Aug. 19, 2003CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. Faculty member violated patent policy by failing to disclose invention.
on the Markert Committee.FN6. The Bayh–Dole Act, Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Pub.L. 96–517, § 6(a), 94 Stat. 3019, codified at )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
., grants non-profit organizations exclusive title to inventions developed through federal funding, and allows them to freely license such inventions)
41
§ 200University of Colorado Foundation, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6a074ba253fb11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D40%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=40&docFamilyGuid=I48d270c0729a11d7ab54daa4035d65fa&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0216 F.Supp.2d 1188, 1193+169 Ed. Law Rep. 168, 168+D.Colo.(NO.CIV.A. 93-K-1657)Aug. 13, 2002CaseINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Damages. Patentee was liable to true inventor for unjust enrichment.
stage for modern university licensing, went into effect less than six months before the 634 patent's filing date.'' 196 F.3d at 1374 (citing )
35 U.S.C. § 200 (1994))
While it is of little import in this case where my findings, specifically, are that the University of Colorado was ahead)
42
§ 200Public Citizen Health Research Group v. National Institutes of Healthhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I16a463ca53f711d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D41%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=41&docFamilyGuid=I59388f90725311d7ab54daa4035d65fa&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0209 F.Supp.2d 37, 40+D.D.C.(NO.CIV.A. 00-1847(CKK))Mar. 12, 2002CaseGOVERNMENT - Records. Royalty information for National Institutes of Health inventions was exempt from disclosure.
the CRADA to the outside party at the outset of the collaboration without going through the standard licensing regulations required by the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200)
Id. Many of these ''Intramural'' and ''CRADA'' inventions are ''early stage technologies'' that otherwise would not be further developed but for the)
43
§ 200Madey v. Duke Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id1c8b1d6540911d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D42%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=42&docFamilyGuid=I3c24ff409c8511d7b2dfb15d6fc8e52f&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0266 F.Supp.2d 420, 429179 Ed. Law Rep. 231, 231M.D.N.C.(NO.1:97 CV 01170)June 15, 2001CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. University's research use of patents was noninfringing.
that are covered by such a license are not subject to infringement liability.3 FN3. Such a conclusion is supported by the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212, which establishes that the Government has an irrevocable paid up license to have patents practiced on its behalf, where it has)
44
§ 200Theron v. Sollingerhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id7496500541811d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D43%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=43&docFamilyGuid=Ib826581058c211d894badfb40f7db721&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02000 WL 34235997, *4W.D.Wis.(NO.99-C-0743-C)July 20, 2000CaseThis is a civil action in which plaintiff Amy D. Theron contends that defendant Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation deprived her of her property interest in the subject matter of...
justiciable issues remain. First, she continues to contest her obligation to assign her interest in the invention to defendant, contending that the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200)
212, does not apply to her personally but only to the university. She maintains that the university was required to obtain an)
45
§ 200Vartanian v. General Elec. Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I28834369796111d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D44%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=44&docFamilyGuid=Ibf75345071ce11d796fabc35f7796f7a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0232 F.3d 911, 911Fed.Cir.(NO.99-1404)Apr. 06, 2000CaseMichael H. Vartanian appeals from the orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (1) dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim...
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) and properly denied his subsequent motions to amend and for reconsideration. First, several of Vartanian's claims are based on )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 (1994)''Patent Rights in Inventions Made with Federal Assistance.''These sections require that certain provisions regarding the disclosure of inventions and)
46
§ 200University of Colorado Foundation, Inc. v. American Cyanamid Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I985eab0c94b611d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D45%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=45&docFamilyGuid=I1f9fdbe072bb11d7a07084608af77b15&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0196 F.3d 1366, 13742000 Copr.L.Dec. P 28,095, 28095 140 Ed. Law Rep. 59, 59 52 U.S.P.Q.2d 1801, 1801Fed.Cir.(Colo.)(NO.97-1468, 98-1113)Nov. 19, 1999CasePublic university and doctors brought action against manufacturer of reformulated prenatal multivitamin/mineral supplement for fraudulent nondisclosure, unjust enrichment, patent...
Dole Act, which set the stage for modern university licensing went into effect less than six months before the '634 patent's filing date.See )
35 U.S.C. § 200 (1994))
[16] The district court also held Cyanamid liable to the University for unjust enrichment. Cyanamid does not argue that the district)
47
§ 200Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I26ac39d9948611d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D46%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=46&docFamilyGuid=I299c2ef0728411d7a07084608af77b15&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0172 F.3d 38, 382nd Cir.(N.Y.)(NO.97-9196)Feb. 10, 1999CaseSanford H. Rose brought this action for breach of contract in New York State court, seeking to enforce an oral agreement allegedly made for the licensing of technology developed...
the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York invoking federal question jurisdiction based on the Technology Transfer Act. )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
. The Technology Transfer Act allows AUI, a nonprofit New York corporation, to manage Brookhaven under contract with the Department of)
48
§ 200Scripps Clinic & Research Foundation v. County of San Diegohttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ic5a8a2bbfab811d99439b076ef9ec4de/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D47%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=47&docFamilyGuid=I47ddcf40745511d7a658bf569bf0de0b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.061 Cal.Rptr.2d 756, 758+53 Cal.App.4th 402, 405+ 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1812, 1812+ 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 3363, 3363+Cal.App. 4 Dist.(NO.D021791)Mar. 10, 1997CaseTAXES - Real Property. Research institute's agreements with private company did not preclude its property from qualifying for welfare exemption.
also hindered from developing applied research products by its inability to obtain patents for its basic research products until 1980 when the federal patent law ()
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
.) was amended to allow and encourage basic research organizations to patent their basic research products and enter into agreements similar)
49
§ 200Progressive Animal Welfare Soc. v. University of Washingtonhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icbc59251f59711d99439b076ef9ec4de/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D48%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=48&docFamilyGuid=I354c6940741e11d79c33f30f55d9158b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0884 P.2d 592, 594+125 Wash.2d 243, 243+ 95 Ed. Law Rep. 711, 711+Wash.(NO.59714-6)Nov. 22, 1994CaseRecords. University researcher's unfunded grant proposal was subject to disclosure.
did not apply to animal rights group's action seeking access to unfunded university grant proposal, where no information described in Act was subject to disclosure. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
205[24]326 Records 326II Public Access 326II(B) General Statutory Disclosure Requirements 326 53 Matters Subject to Disclosure; Exemptions 326 55)
50
§ 200Hunneman Real Estate Corp. v. Eastern Middlesex Ass'n of Realtors, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I7dd107d0562511d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D49%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=49&docFamilyGuid=I33ecb490745211d79d2ef02eee90521e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0860 F.Supp. 906, 9111994-2 Trade Cases P 70,769, 70769D.Mass.
(NO.CIV. A. 94-11358-RCL)
July 21, 1994CaseReal estate brokers sued operators of multiple listing service alleging, inter alia, an illegal tying arrangement in violation of the Massachusetts Antitrust Act.   Defendants...
360 (S.D.N.Y.1992), where state law third party beneficiary and breach of contract claims necessarily depended on an interpretation of the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et. seq)
., none of the elements of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims ''necessarily depend'' on federal law. In this case, ''federal law provides)
51
§ 200Rose v. Associated Universities, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I700793e0561f11d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D50%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=50&docFamilyGuid=I5f144200743911d79d2ef02eee90521e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.01994 WL 167974, *1S.D.N.Y.(NO.93 CIV. 5872 (LMM))Apr. 29, 1994CasePlaintiff Sanford H. Rose originally filed this action in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. Defendant Associated Universities, Inc. (''AUI'')...
moreover, directs AUI to grant licenses for these patents to private concerns in order to exploit the commercial potential of the underlying technologies.See also )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
et seq. To facilitate this mission, AUI's Office of Technology Transfer (''OTT'') conducts an Outreach Program, by which it disseminates information to)
52
§ 200Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkinshttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I07522b4a970011d993e6d35cc61aab4a/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D51%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=51&docFamilyGuid=I137a65b0728e11d7947cc0bc28d0837a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.011 F.3d 1573, 157629 U.S.P.Q.2d 1188, 1188Fed.Cir.(Cal.)(NO.92-1410)Dec. 13, 1993CaseMedical center and physicians brought action against Department of Energy challenging Department's assertion that it was entitled to patent for angioplasty technique developed by...
under section 5908; whether section 5908 applies to Cedars; whether section 5908 is superseded by chapter 18 of Title 35 of the United States Code, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
212 (1988)35 U.S.C. ch. 18); and whether the Determination was unlawfully issued.After considering Cedars' complaint and the parties' various motions)
53
§ 200Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center for Neurologic Studyhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I20ad22a0562011d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D52%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=52&docFamilyGuid=I51629370744111d79d2ef02eee90521e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0853 F.Supp. 1215, 1217+30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1077, 1077+S.D.Cal.(NO.CV 93-1284 H (BTM))Nov. 12, 1993CaseIn suit against research organization, organization asserted counterclaim under patent statute and contract law based on disclosure or nondisclosure of inventions developed by...
F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir.1986)2. Application of Standard Defendant alleges three causes of action in its counterclaim: (1) constructive trust based on )
35 U.S.C. § 200, et seq)
. (2) breach of written contract; and (3) declaratory judgment. The court must determine whether each states a cognizable legal theory)
54
§ 200Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I191b0780560411d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D53%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=53&docFamilyGuid=I4c1d0ce0726311d7947cc0bc28d0837a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.01993 WL 90412, *2+D.N.J.(NO.CIV. A. 91-5286)Mar. 25, 1993CaseThis matter comes before the Court on the motion of defendants, Alza Corporation (''Alza'') and Marion Merrell Dow, Inc. (''Marion Merrell Dow''), for reconsideration of this...
It is with these standards in mind that the Court reviews the arguments of Alza and Marion Merrell Dow.2. Reconsideration of the Applicability of )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
04 The Court ruled that )
sections 200)
04 do not apply to the '652 patent. In support of this ruling, the Court)
55
§ 200Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ieb8b852455f811d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D54%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=54&docFamilyGuid=I0d37e20071e311d7947cc0bc28d0837a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0804 F.Supp. 614, 615+23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1246, 1246+ 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1321+D.N.J.(NO.CIV. A. 91-5286)Oct. 23, 1992CaseConception and reduction to practiceManufacturer which had been licensed by regents of University of California to manufacture nicotine patch under patent No. 5,016,652, brought suit against alleged infringers.  ...
licensed by regents of University of California was invalid and not infringed. West's Ann.Cal. Const. Art. 9, § 9(a, c, f); U.S.C.A. Const.Amend. 11 )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
204 202(c)[4]170B Federal Courts 170BV Suits Against States; Eleventh Amendment and Sovereign Immunity 170B 2372 Exceptions to Immunity 170B)
56
§ 200Cedars-Sinai Medical Center v. Watkinshttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ide33c986561811d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D55%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=55&docFamilyGuid=I83efdc00741c11d79d2ef02eee90521e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.01992 WL 551485, *2+C.D.Cal.(NO.CV 92 0154 JGD)May 19, 1992CaseOn May 18, 1992, the following motions came before the Court for hearing: (1) defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Stay of Proceedings; (2) plaintiffs' Motion for...
expended significant resources to further develop laser angioplasty. Finally, Cedars claims that 42 U.S.C. § 5908 is not applicable to this situation because another statute, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
, et seq., takes precedence since there is no ''funding agreement'' in this case.Cedars' complaint alleges two causes of action: (1) to)
57
§ 200Platzer v. Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Researchhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ic03b565755eb11d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D56%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=56&docFamilyGuid=Iabdf286071bf11d7947cc0bc28d0837a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0787 F.Supp. 360, 362+60 USLW 2595, 2595+ 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1845, 1845+S.D.N.Y.(NO.91 CIV. 6578 (JSM))Mar. 04, 1992CaseDoctors brought action against not-for-profit research institute to recover royalties stemming from discovery they made while employed by institute, and institute moved to dismiss....
IPA were modified by the 1980 Bayh–Dole Act. (Act of Dec. 12, 1980, Pub.L. 96–517, § 6(a), 94 Stat. 3019, codified at )
35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq)
. The Bayh–Dole Act grants non-profit organizations exclusive title to inventions developed through federal funding, and allows them to)
58
§ 200Southern Research Institute v. Griffin Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ie0708d7494be11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D57%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=57&docFamilyGuid=I63a4ebe0747411d79ccbd455e2fa80ef&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0938 F.2d 1249, 1249+19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761, 1761+11th Cir.(Ala.)(NO.90-7761)Aug. 14, 1991CaseResearch institute and its employees brought suit challenging government's grant of exclusive license to corporation for rights to insecticide under government's patent...
exhaustion requirement and obtain judicial review by urging that government did not possess rights in the invention and was without authority to grant the license. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 200)
212 202(a, c, e)[2]291 Patents 291III Persons Entitled to Patents 291III(A) In General 291 853 k. Public employees)
59
§ 200Nutrition 21 v. U.S.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iebbc0722968711d9bc61beebb95be672/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN094D70F0A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D58%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=58&docFamilyGuid=If9aa3020746811d79ccbd455e2fa80ef&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.UserEnteredCitation%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0930 F.2d 862, 863+18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1351, 1351+Fed.Cir.(Wash.)(NO.90-1382)Mar. 29, 1991CaseLicensee of patent owned by the federal government commenced infringement action and named the United States as a defendant.   The United States moved to dismiss and the licensee...
An Act to Amend the Patent and Trademark Laws,''Pub.L. No. 96–517, 94 Stat. 3015 (1980) (§ 6(a) of which is codified at )
35 U.S.C. §§ 200)
11 We discuss both the terms of the license agreement and 35 U.S.C. § 207(a)(2) in greater detail below.Opposing)
60
§ 201
L-3 Communications Corporation v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iaf726ce0513011e5ba1adf5ea8bc3a3d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D1%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=1&docFamilyGuid=Ib074e8c0513011e5b3c9b3a722c3679b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0125 F.Supp.3d 1155, 1177+
2015 IER Cases 190,482, 190482+
D.Colo.
(NO. 10-CV-02868-MSK-KMT )
Sep. 01, 2015CasePATENTS - Estoppel. Employer, a government contractor, lost its exclusive right to practice its patent when government exercised its right to appropriate title to patent.
claim challenging the determination with the Army Corps of Engineers or challenging the letter as a final agency decision before the Court of Federal Claims. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 201(c)(1)
)41 U.S.C.A. § 7101 et seq.48 C.F.R. § 252.227-7038(d)(1)(ii)[19]29T Antitrust and Trade)
61
§ 201Classen Immunotherapies, Inc. v. Shionogi, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icbbe385389d411e39ac8bab74931929c/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D2%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=2&docFamilyGuid=Icbbe385489d411e39ac8bab74931929c&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0993 F.Supp.2d 569, 576D.Md.
(NO. CIV. RWT-13-921 )
Jan. 29, 2014CasePATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Competitors' actions were protected from patent infringement claim under safe harbor for regulatory submissions of pharmaceuticals.
the importance of symmetry in the statutory scheme's coverage of patented products that both retain the benefit of a provision in 35 U.S.C. § 156 )
section 201)
of the Hatch–Waxman Act) and the disadvantage of § 271(e)(1) (section 202 of the Hatch–Waxman Act), see Eli Lilly, 496)
62
§ 201Siegler v. Ohio State Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I79ccd1cb797b11e196ddf76f9be2cc49/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D3%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=3&docFamilyGuid=I79ccd1cc797b11e196ddf76f9be2cc49&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02012 WL 1030546, *3+S.D.Ohio(NO. 2:11-CV-170 )Mar. 27, 2012CaseThis matter is before the Court pursuant to the motion of Defendant Leona Ayers to dismiss Plaintiff's remaining claim under Fed. Rs. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6) (Doc. 122),...
15.)On September 26, 2011, the Court issued an opinion and order, in which it noted that Plaintiff had challenged O.R.C. § 3345.14 and )
35 U.S.C. § 201 et seq)
., statutes which required that research produced at universities became the intellectual property of those universities, as violative of the Fifth)
63
§ 201Siegler v. Ohio State Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ic8fcf186e9d911e08b448cf533780ea2/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D4%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=4&docFamilyGuid=Ic8fcf187e9d911e08b448cf533780ea2&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 4467757, *4+S.D.Ohio(NO. 2:11-CV-170 )Sep. 26, 2011CaseOn May 23, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued an initial screening Report and Recommendation on this matter, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). (Doc. 10.) On June 6, 2011,...
all rights to inventions, discoveries, and patents resulting from a state university research facility becomes the property of that university. Additionally, the ''Bayh–Dole Act'', )
35 U.S.C. § 201 et seq)
. gives universities control of intellectual property arising from federally funded research.(Doc. 46 at 15–16.) Defendants argue that, under)
64
§ 201
Alzheimer's Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I9ccf47a1d78f11e0a06efc94fb34cdeb/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D5%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=5&docFamilyGuid=I9ccf47a2d78f11e0a06efc94fb34cdeb&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3875341, *9+E.D.Pa.(NO. CIV.A. 10-6908 )Aug. 31, 2011CaseThe threshold issue is whether the plaintiff, the assignee of the patents in suit, has standing to prosecute this patent infringement action. Unless the plaintiff owns the patents,...
WL 2175210, at *4 (June 6, 2011)aff'g 583 F.3d 832 (Fed.Cir.2009) There, the Court found that the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, )
35 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(e)
)202(a), which allocates rights in federally funded inventions between federal contractors and the government, did not contain unambiguous vesting)
65
§ 201Collins v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I83a0bc4bd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D6%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=6&docFamilyGuid=I83a0bc4cd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3848631, *3+E.D.Tex.
(NO. 2:09-CV-219-TJW )
Aug. 29, 2011CasePending before the Court is Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., and Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s (collectively,...
the ′007 patent A. The Bayh–Dole Act The Bayh–Dole Act applies only to a ''subject invention'' of the government-funded research project. See )
35 U.S.C. § 201(e))
A ''subject invention'' is any invention of the ''contractor'' that was ''conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance)
66
§ 201Siegler v. Ohio State Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ice4bfc30c1c111e086cdc006bc7eafe7/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D7%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=7&docFamilyGuid=Ice4bfc31c1c111e086cdc006bc7eafe7&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3417790, *3S.D.Ohio(NO. 2:10-CV-172 )Aug. 04, 2011CaseThe factual background of Plaintiff's claims is set forth in detail in the Court's May 23, 2011 Opinion and Order. (Doc. 79 at 1–5.) Plaintiff, a former employee of Ohio State...
of Constitutional Question'' (Doc. 7), in which she stated that she wished to challenge the constitutionality under the Fifth Amendment of the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 201 et seq)
., and O.R.C. § 3345.14, two statutes addressing the ownership of intellectual property created at universities. The Court previously found)
67
§ 201
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I8708f1ee8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D8%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=8&docFamilyGuid=I8708f1ef8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0131 S.Ct. 2188, 2188+
563 U.S. 776, 776+ 180 L.Ed.2d 1, 1+ 79 USLW 4407, 4407+ 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761, 1761+ 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6795, 6795+ 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8175, 8175+ 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1069, 1069+ 68 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 617, 617+
U.S.(NO. 09-1159 )June 06, 2011CasePATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Bayh–Dole Act did not automatically confer title to federally-funded HIV detection inventions in federal contractors.
methods while working for both university and manufacturer, in joint project, using partial federal funding that university, as federal contractor, had received for the project. )
35 U.S.C.A. §§ 201(e))
202(a)210(a)Syllabus FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared)
68
§ 201Siegler v. The Ohio State Universityhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id1aba296861011e0af6af9916f973d19/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D9%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=9&docFamilyGuid=Id1aba297861011e0af6af9916f973d19&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 1990548, *4S.D.Ohio(NO. 2:10-CV-172 )May 23, 2011CaseThis matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint (Doc. 9) under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. For the...
all rights to inventions, discoveries, and patents resulting from a state university research facility become the property of that university), and the ''Bayh–Dole Act'', )
35 U.S.C. § 201 et seq)
. (a federal statute giving universities control of intellectual property arising from federally funded research), as violative of the Fifth Amendment)
69
§ 201
Kimberly-Clark Worldwide, Inc. v. First Quality Baby Products, LLC
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ide0bd4eef25a11df88699d6fd571daba/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D10%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=10&docFamilyGuid=Ide0bd4eff25a11df88699d6fd571daba&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02010 WL 4630833, *1E.D.Wis.(NO. 09-C-0916 )Nov. 04, 2010CaseIn this civil action Plaintiffs Kimberly–Clark Worldwide, Inc., and Kimberly–Clark Global Sales, LLC (collectively ''K–C'') allege that Defendants First Quality Baby Products, LLC,...
Court will still need to hold a trial on ′067 and ′187 Patents to consider the alleged prior art, which the PTO cannot consider. See )
35 U.S.C. § 201)
311 Third, First Quality argues that a stay would not unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party)
70
§ 201Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5182c656ac6a11df8228ac372eb82649/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D11%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=11&docFamilyGuid=I5182c657ac6a11df8228ac372eb82649&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02010 WL 3275758, *1E.D.Tex.(NO. 6:08-CV-273 )Apr. 15, 2010CaseBefore the Court is Defendants Hewlett–Packard Company and Dell, Inc.'s (''Defendants'') Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 102). The matter is...
A subject invention is ''any invention of the [entity] conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.'' )
35 U.S.C. § 201(e))
The Act permits the entity to retain title to a subject invention by making a written election within two years of)
71
§ 201E8 Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Affymetrix, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ibb20f216075411df9988d233d23fe599/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D12%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=12&docFamilyGuid=Ibb20f217075411df9988d233d23fe599&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0680 F.Supp.2d 292, 296D.Mass.
(NO. CIV.A08-11132GAO , CIV.A09-10832GAO )
Jan. 13, 2010CasePATENTS - Parties. Bare licensee of patent lacked standing to sue alleged infringers.
the event that such U.S. manufacture proves to be non-viable economically, M.I.T., upon request by COMPANY, agrees to assist in seeking a waiver under )
35 U.S.C. §§ 201)
211 to allow the manufacture outside the United States for the U.S. market.Id. § 2.4.)[2] It is perhaps possible)
72
§ 201
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icaa06602d66611dc8dba9deb08599717/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D13%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=13&docFamilyGuid=Icaa06603d66611dc8dba9deb08599717&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0263 Fed.Appx. 865, 865+
87 U.S.P.Q.2d 1863, 1863+
Fed.Cir.
(NO. 2007-1026 , 2007-1033 )
Jan. 29, 2008CaseA combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc was filed by the Appellant, and a response thereto was invited by the court and filed by the Cross Appellant. The...
with Federal Assistance.''Also, the language within some of the sections of the Bayh-Dole Act suggests its provenance as a patent law. For example, )
35 U.S.C. § 201(d))
defines ''invention'' as ''any invention or discovery which is or may be patentable )
Section 201(e))
explains that a ''subject invention)
73
§ 201
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Xenon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ib124255882e511dcbd4c839f532b53c5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D14%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=14&docFamilyGuid=Ib124255982e511dcbd4c839f532b53c5&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0252 Fed.Appx. 319, 320Fed.Cir.
(NO. 2007-1026 , 2007-1033 )
Oct. 24, 2007CasePATENTS - Appeals. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit lacked jurisdiction over appeal in case that did not arise under federal patent law.
a patent law under which a claim may arise. At its heart, the Bayh–Dole Act concerns government funding agreements—contracts in the language of )
35 U.S.C. § 201)
—an area that is outside our section 1295(a) jurisdiction.See Bonzel v. Pfizer, Inc., 439 F.3d 1358, 1362–63 (Fed.Cir)
74
§ 201
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I239a2b56c7f611dba8b1daa4185606d6/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D15%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=15&docFamilyGuid=I239a2b57c7f611dba8b1daa4185606d6&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02007 WL 608009, *15N.D.Cal.
(NO. C 05-04158 MHP )
Feb. 23, 2007CaseOn October 14, 2005 plaintiff Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University (''plaintiff'' or ''Stanford'') brought this action against Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.,...
368 (S.D.N.Y.2000) A ''subject invention'' is ''any invention conceived or reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement.''Id. (quoting )
35 U.S.C. § 201(e))
Courts have held that such statutory vesting in the United States defeats the patentee's presumptive title to an invention, and immediately)
75
§ 201Nilssen v. Osram Sylvania, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ie9a52148110a11dba224cd6b838f54f9/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D16%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=16&docFamilyGuid=Ie9a52149110a11dba224cd6b838f54f9&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0440 F.Supp.2d 884, 903+N.D.Ill.(NO. 01 C 3585 )July 05, 2006CasePATENTS - Inequitable Conduct. Failure to disclose applicant's relationship with declarant when submitting affidavit to PTO was inequitable conduct.
Revenue Code 26 U.S.C. 501(a)); (3) any nonprofit scientific or educational organization qualified under a nonprofit organization statute of a state in this country ()
35 U.S.C. 201(j))
); or (4) any nonprofit organization under paragraphs (e)(2) or (3) of those sections if it were located in this country.37)
76
§ 201
Campbell Plastics Engineering & Mfg., Inc. v. Brownlee
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ieb5d44028bc011d99a6fdc806bf1638e/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D17%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=17&docFamilyGuid=I4620551d334e11d98b61a35269fc5f88&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0389 F.3d 1243, 1247
73 U.S.P.Q.2d 1357, 1357
Fed.Cir.(NO. 03-1512 )Nov. 10, 2004CasePATENTS - Defense Contracts. Contractor forfeited rights to invention developed under contract with Army.
to any invention by the contractor developed pursuant to a government contract. For purposes of the Act, Congress has termed these inventions ''subject inventions.'' See )
35 U.S.C. § 201(d)(e) (1988)
) (defining an ''invention'' to mean ''any invention or discovery that is or may be patentable,'' and ''subject invention'' to)
77
§ 201Trinity Industries, Inc. v. Road Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5c4aeb8553ff11d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D18%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=18&docFamilyGuid=I251d3030742911d7abd288e162f1ee6f&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0235 F.Supp.2d 536, 539+
173 Ed. Law Rep. 57, 57+
E.D.Tex.(NO. 1:98-CV-1634 )Sep. 24, 2002CaseINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Patent Practice. Non-disclosure of government funding did not render patent unenforceable.
of parties, or subcontract of any type entered into for the performance of experimental, developmental, or research work under a funding agreement as herein defined. )
35 U.S.C. § 201(b))
(emphasis added). Under the Act, a ''contractor'' is ''any person, small business firm, or nonprofit organization that is a party to)
78
§ 201
TM Patents, L.P. v. International Business Machines Corp.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I3a4a99c553d411d9b17ee4cdc604a702/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D19%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=19&docFamilyGuid=I3df4cec0726b11d796fabc35f7796f7a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0121 F.Supp.2d 349, 357+S.D.N.Y.
(NO. 97 CIV. 1529(CM)(MDF )
Nov. 13, 2000CaseINTELLECTUAL PROPERTY - Computers and Online Services. Patent assignee lacked standing to sue for infringement.
In view of the foregoing, IBM contends that Hillis lacked title to assign to Thinking Machines, because he failed to file the paperwork required by )
35 U.S.C. § 201(d))
Of course, if Hillis did not have valid title, then he could not convey good title to Thinking Machines, which in)
79
§ 201Vartanian v. General Elec. Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I28834369796111d98c82a53fc8ac8757/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D20%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=20&docFamilyGuid=Ibf75345071ce11d796fabc35f7796f7a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0232 F.3d 911, 911Fed.Cir.(NO. 99-1404 )Apr. 06, 2000CaseMichael H. Vartanian appeals from the orders of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (1) dismissing his complaint for failure to state a claim...
any government contract, subcontract, grant, or cooperative agreement that funds the experimental, developmental, or research work of persons, small business firms, or nonprofit organizations. Se )
35 U.S.C. §§ 201)
202 Vartanian argues that § 202 allows him to pursue a cause of action against the Department of Commerce, Lura Powell, and)
80
§ 201Gen-Probe Inc. v. Center for Neurologic Studyhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I20ad22a0562011d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D21%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=21&docFamilyGuid=I51629370744111d79d2ef02eee90521e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0853 F.Supp. 1215, 1217
30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1077, 1077
S.D.Cal.
(NO. CV 93-1284 H (BTM) )
Nov. 12, 1993CaseIn suit against research organization, organization asserted counterclaim under patent statute and contract law based on disclosure or nondisclosure of inventions developed by...
within such time.35 U.S.C. § 202 (1988)Defendant alleges that the inventions disclosed in the '330 Patent are ''subject inventions'' within the meaning of )
Sections 201(e))
and 202(a) because Dr. Kohne ''conceived'' or ''reduced to practice'' the inventions while working under funding agreements with federal government agencies. Defendant)
81
§ 201Ciba-Geigy Corp. v. Alza Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ieb8b852455f811d9a99c85a9e6023ffa/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D22%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=22&docFamilyGuid=I0d37e20071e311d7947cc0bc28d0837a&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0804 F.Supp. 614, 627+
23 Fed.R.Serv.3d 1246, 1246+ 26 U.S.P.Q.2d 1321, 1321+
D.N.J.(NO. CIV. A. 91-5286 )Oct. 23, 1992CaseManufacturer which had been licensed by regents of University of California to manufacture nicotine patch under patent No. 5,016,652, brought suit against alleged infringers.  ...
agreement.6 FN6. Under § 201 a contractor is any person, small business, firm or nonprofit organization that is a party to a funding agreement. )
35 U.S.C. § 201)
Pursuant to )
§ 201)
a funding agreement is any contract, grant, or cooperative agreement entered into between any Federal agency, other than)
82
§ 201Southern Research Institute v. Griffin Corp.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ie0708d7494be11d9a707f4371c9c34f0/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D23%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=23&docFamilyGuid=I63a4ebe0747411d79ccbd455e2fa80ef&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0938 F.2d 1249, 1252+
19 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761, 1761+
11th Cir.(Ala.)(NO. 90-7761 )Aug. 14, 1991CaseResearch institute and its employees brought suit challenging government's grant of exclusive license to corporation for rights to insecticide under government's patent...
94 Stat. 3015, 3028 (1980). The statute covers inventions ''conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of work under a funding agreement )
35 U.S.C. § 201(e) (1988)
) The funding agreement between SRI and the USDA was entered into in 1978 and concluded in 1980. Arguably some portions)
83
§ 201Martinez v. Bellhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I20b00683552811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D24%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=24&docFamilyGuid=If01a1ac0744f11d79a8ab5f5a94ee96e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0468 F.Supp. 719, 720S.D.N.Y.
(NO. 77 CIV. 5964(GLG) )
Apr. 05, 1979CaseAmerican citizen children, represented by their alien parents, brought action seeking declaration of constitutionality of 1976 amendment to Immigration and Nationality Act...
the amendment but were challenging provision which such rules and regulations were intended to enforce. Immigration and Nationality Act, §§ 101 et seq.,104(a) )
201 et seq)
.,212(a)(14)279 as amended 8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101 et seq.,1104(a)1151 et seq.,1182(a)(14)1329[5]24)
84
§ 201
Miller v. Local 50, American Federation of Grain Millers
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I20b0c9e0552811d9bf30d7fdf51b6bd4/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D25%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=25&docFamilyGuid=Ieb558dd0744f11d79a8ab5f5a94ee96e&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0468 F.Supp. 193, 199
100 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 3030, 3030 86 Lab.Cas. P 11,328, 11328
D.Neb.(NO. CIV. 77-0-473 )Mar. 14, 1979CaseEmployee brought action against employer claiming that employer wrongfully discharged her from employment and for defamation and also alleged breach of union's duty to fairly and...
procedures as a preferred method for settling disputes and stabilizing the ''common law'' of the plant. LMRA s 203(d), 29 U.S.C. s 173(d) )
s 201(c))
29 U.S.C. s 171(c) (1958 ed.) Union interest in prosecuting employee grievances is clear. Such activity complements the union's status as exclusive)
85
§ 201In re Penn Central Transp. Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iaa4ca6b7551311d997e0acd5cbb90d3f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DN09F65B20A06911D8A63DAA9EBCE8FE5A%26midlineIndex%3D26%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=26&docFamilyGuid=I34ee7f10745011d789fed0d41f30a68d&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0384 F.Supp. 895, 993Sp.Ct.R.R.R.A.
(NO. 74-10 , 74-11 , 74-12 , 74-6 , 74-7 , 74-8 , 74-9 )
Sep. 30, 1974CaseRailroad reorganization proceedings. In five of the actions, the District Courts for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, District of New Jersey and Southern District of New...
a prospect blasted by former President Nixon's four months' delay in nominating the Chairman and certain other members of the Board of Directors of USRA, )
§ 201(d))
They point also to an USRA press release dated August 22, 1974, a copy of which is annexed as Appendix B, showing that)
86
§ 202Ali v. Carnegie Institution of Washingtonhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I06092fd0207411e79de0d9b9354e8e59/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D1%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=1&docFamilyGuid=I06f8e700207411e79602e061f24d30eb&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0684 Fed.Appx. 985, 992Fed.Cir.(Dist.Col.)(NO. 2016-2320 )Apr. 12, 2017CasePATENTS - Jurisdiction. State did not waive its immunity by entering into arrangements controlled by federal law and reviewable only in federal court.
suit; state did not waive its immunity by entering into arrangements controlled by federal law and reviewable only in federal court. U.S. Const. Amend. 11 )
35 U.S.C.A. § 202(c)(7)(B)
)[4]291 Patents 291VII Patent Infringement 291VII(C) Actions 291VII(C)1 In General 291 1750 Discovery 291 1755 Scope)
87
§ 202
Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc. v. United States
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I48799190b82b11e6ac07a76176915fee/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D2%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=2&docFamilyGuid=I49f1b2a0b82b11e6a1a195fde5301bdf&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0129 Fed.Cl. 525, 528+Fed.Cl.(NO. 12-85 C )Nov. 30, 2016CasePATENTS - Industrial Equipment. Government employment or service jurisdictional bar did not apply to patent infringement action against United States.
AATI's PCT/US/2009 Application; U.S. Patent Nos. 6,874,729 7,097,137 8,517,306 8,167,242 8,567,718; and 8,864,069; and U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 14/518,348 pursuant to )
35 U.S.C. § 202)
4 and Federal Acquisition Regulation § 52.227–11 Gov't App'x at GA 228–33.FN4. The relevant portions of )
35 U.S.C)
88
§ 202Immersion Corporation v. HTC Corporationhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I119b4670384011e68a49905015f0787e/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D3%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=3&docFamilyGuid=I7630b8e0388111e6b8cdf4914e3f857b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0826 F.3d 1357, 1361
119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1083, 1083
Fed.Cir.(Del.)(NO. 2015-1574 )June 21, 2016CasePATENTS - Priority. Later-filed patent application can claim same filing date as earlier-filed application when later one is filed on day of earlier one's patenting.
20(j)(1), 125 Stat. 284, 288, 328, 335 (2011); Patent Law Treaties Implementation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112–211§§ 102(5) )
202(3))
126 Stat. 1527, 1531, 1536.[2]Section 120's language does not by its terms answer the question whether a later-filed application can)
89
§ 202SRI International, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I9a667040018d11e6981be831f2f2ac24/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D4%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=4&docFamilyGuid=I9b9e5400018d11e687fd82b9306d64e6&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02016 WL 1444593, *1D.Del.
(NO. CV 13-1534-SLR/SRF )
Apr. 11, 2016CaseAt Wilmington this 11th day of April, 2016, having reviewed defendant's motion for sanctions and plaintiff's response thereto; IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I. 280) is denied,...
and other employees. In addition, since SRI's research is federally funded, it is required by the Bayh–Dole Act to share royalties with inventors. See )
35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(7)(B)
) The current version of SRI's royalty–sharing program has been in effect since 2008, and includes all revenue SRI)
90
§ 202
L-3 Communications Corporation v. Jaxon Engineering & Maintenance, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Iaf726ce0513011e5ba1adf5ea8bc3a3d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D5%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=5&docFamilyGuid=Ib074e8c0513011e5b3c9b3a722c3679b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0125 F.Supp.3d 1155
2015 IER Cases 190,482
D.Colo.
(NO. 10-CV-02868-MSK-KMT )
Sep. 01, 2015Case
Disclosure of invention
PATENTS - Estoppel. Employer, a government contractor, lost its exclusive right to practice its patent when government exercised its right to appropriate title to patent.
91
§ 202Ali v. Carnegie Inst. of Washingtonhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5fc16f7ec84411e28501bda794601919/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D6%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=6&docFamilyGuid=I5fc16f7fc84411e28501bda794601919&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0967 F.Supp.2d 1367, 1369+D.Or.
(NO. 3:12-CV-01764-SI )
May 28, 2013CasePATENTS - Immunity. University of Massachusetts was entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in patent dispute.
action under terms of Act, and nothing in text of Act required funding recipient to consent to suit in federal court. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 11 )
35 U.S.C. § 202(d))
[26]106 Courts 106II Establishment, Organization, and Procedure 106II(G) Rules of Decision 106 88 Previous Decisions as Controlling or as)
92
§ 202
Alzheimer's Institute of America, Inc. v. Avid Radiopharmaceuticals
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I9ccf47a1d78f11e0a06efc94fb34cdeb/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D7%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=7&docFamilyGuid=I9ccf47a2d78f11e0a06efc94fb34cdeb&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3875341, *9E.D.Pa.(NO. CIV.A. 10-6908 )Aug. 31, 2011CaseThe threshold issue is whether the plaintiff, the assignee of the patents in suit, has standing to prosecute this patent infringement action. Unless the plaintiff owns the patents,...
2011)aff'g 583 F.3d 832 (Fed.Cir.2009) There, the Court found that the Bayh–Dole Act of 1980, 35 U.S.C. §§ 201(c)(e) )
202(a))
, which allocates rights in federally funded inventions between federal contractors and the government, did not contain unambiguous vesting language. Id. at *7. Rather, the)
93
§ 202Collins v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I83a0bc4bd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D8%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=8&docFamilyGuid=I83a0bc4cd4a011e0bc27967e57e99458&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02011 WL 3848631, *2+E.D.Tex.
(NO. 2:09-CV-219-TJW )
Aug. 29, 2011CasePending before the Court is Defendants Hitachi, Ltd., Hitachi America, Ltd, Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Inc., and Western Digital Technologies, Inc.'s (collectively,...
200 et seq. The Bayh–Dole Act requires title to inventions flowing from government-funded research to remain with the government in certain circumstances. See )
35 U.S.C. § 202(a))
In other circumstances, the Act makes available a procedure for nonprofit organizations and other ''contractors'' to follow if they wish to)
94
§ 202
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I8708f1ee8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D9%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=9&docFamilyGuid=I8708f1ef8f7911e0a34df17ea74c323f&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0131 S.Ct. 2188, 2188+
563 U.S. 776, 776+ 180 L.Ed.2d 1, 1+ 79 USLW 4407, 4407+ 98 U.S.P.Q.2d 1761, 1761+ 11 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6795, 6795+ 2011 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8175, 8175+ 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 1069, 1069+ 68 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 617, 617+
U.S.(NO. 09-1159 )June 06, 2011CaseAssignmentPATENTS - Medical Devices and Procedures. Bayh–Dole Act did not automatically confer title to federally-funded HIV detection inventions in federal contractors.
university and manufacturer, in joint project, using partial federal funding that university, as federal contractor, had received for the project. 35 U.S.C.A. §§ 201(e) )
202(a))
210(a)Syllabus FN* The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions)
95
§ 202Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I5182c656ac6a11df8228ac372eb82649/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D10%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=10&docFamilyGuid=I5182c657ac6a11df8228ac372eb82649&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02010 WL 3275758, *1+E.D.Tex.(NO. 6:08-CV-273 )Apr. 15, 2010CaseBefore the Court is Defendants Hewlett–Packard Company and Dell, Inc.'s (''Defendants'') Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. No. 102). The matter is...
each subject invention to the Federal agency within a reasonable time after it becomes known to contractor personnel responsible for the administration of patent matters.'' )
35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(1)
) A subject invention is ''any invention of the [entity] conceived or first actually reduced to practice in the performance of)
96
§ 202
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ife6474f0adf611deb08de1b7506ad85b/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D11%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=11&docFamilyGuid=Ife6474f1adf611deb08de1b7506ad85b&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0583 F.3d 832, 834+
249 Ed. Law Rep. 612, 612+ 92 U.S.P.Q.2d 1442, 1442+
Fed.Cir.(Cal.)
(NO. 2008-1509 , 2008-1510 )
Sep. 30, 2009CasePATENTS - Assignments and Licensing. University was not a bona fide purchaser of inventor's assignment under patent law.
to inventions arising from federally supported research or development under certain circumstances, does not automatically void ab initio an inventors' rights in government-funded inventions. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 202)
[23]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(F) Government Rights and Duties as to Inventions 291 1532 Inventions by Government)
97
§ 202University of Pittsburgh v. Townsendhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Id5a85fba7e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D12%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=12&docFamilyGuid=Id5a85fbb7e5e11ddb7e583ba170699a5&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0542 F.3d 513, 520
237 Ed. Law Rep. 43, 43 28 IER Cases 218, 218
6th Cir.(Tenn.)(NO. 07-6062 )Sep. 09, 2008CaseEDUCATION - Property and Contracts. Doctrine of fraudulent concealment did not toll statutes of limitations for university's tort and contract claims.
inventors and CPS as assignee but were silent with respect to the University.In November 1999, the University acted pursuant to the Bayh–Dole Act, )
35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(2)
)1 which relates to the receipt of federal funds for government-funded research, to elect title to the PET/CT)
98
§ 202University of Pittsburgh v. Townsendhttps://www.westlaw.com/Document/Ie8591739466b11dcb979ebb8243d536d/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D13%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=13&docFamilyGuid=Ie859173a466b11dcb979ebb8243d536d&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.02007 WL 2263079, *11E.D.Tenn.(NO. 3:04-CV-291 )Aug. 03, 2007CaseIn this action, the plaintiff University of Pittsburgh (''University'') alleges that the defendants David W. Townsend, Ronald Nutt, CTI Molecular Imaging, Inc. (''CTI''), and CTI...
University elected title to the PET/CT scanner invention, pursuant to the provisions of the Bayh-Dole Act relating to the receipt of federal funds, )
35 U.S.C. § 202(c)(2)
) This election of title is reflected on the NIH's website. The NIH has never challenged the University's title to the)
99
§ 202
Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/I6052e001eca311dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D14%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=14&docFamilyGuid=I6052e002eca311dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0487 F.Supp.2d 1099, 1102+N.D.Cal.
(NO. C 05-04158 MHP )
Apr. 16, 2007CaseAssignmentPATENTS - Limitations. Competitor's claim as patent licensee was entitled to traditional shield from statute of limitations-based attack.
to government explicitly electing to retain title in patents, and Bayh–Dole Act mandated that university be given superior right to retain title to patents. )
35 U.S.C.A. § 202(d))
37 C.F.R. § 401.1(b)[27]291 Patents 291VI Patent Rights and Duties 291VI(F) Government Rights and Duties as)
100
§ 202
Central Admixture Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. Advanced Cardiac Solutions, P.C.
https://www.westlaw.com/Document/Icc326ce5e21c11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26/View/FullText.html?navigationPath=%2FRelatedInfo%2Fv1%2FkcCitingReferences%2Fnav%3FdocGuid%3DNFCD0C7119D3311E2BBC9BA94036A13C0%26midlineIndex%3D15%26warningFlag%3DX%26planIcons%3DYES%26skipOutOfPlan%3Dnull%26sort%3Ddatedesc%26filterGuid%3Dh562dbc1f9a5f4b0c9e54031a19076b9c%26category%3DkcCitingReferences&listSource=RelatedInfo&list=CitingReferences&rank=15&docFamilyGuid=Icc326ce6e21c11dbaf8dafd7ee2b8b26&originationContext=citingreferences&transitionType=CitingReferencesItem&contextData=%28sc.Document%29&VR=3.0&RS=cblt1.0482 F.3d 1347, 1351+
82 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293, 1293+
Fed.Cir.(Ala.)(NO. 2006-1307 )Apr. 03, 2007CaseLicensingPATENTS - Certificate of Correction. Certificate of correction was invalid for impermissible broadening of claims.
wrote to NIH to request that it waive patent rights in the application so that he could pursue the application in his personal capacity. See )
35 U.S.C. § 202(d))
(allowing agencies to grant such requests). NIH granted that waiver on September 23, 1987, on the condition that ''the inventor shall)
Loading...
 
 
 
All Cases
§200
§201
§202
§203
§204
§205
§206
§207
§208
§209
§210
§211
§212
 
 
Main menu