Filed February 8, 2017
Compare Cal. Lab. Code § 2870 (a)(2) (assignment contract is valid if it concerns work performed by employee for employer) with Stanford, 563 U.S. at 785-86 (employee-inventor assignments to employer are “well established”). Again, the University employment agreements address this issue by requiring assignment of all “possibly patentable” inventions which the University deems patentable.
Filed January 16, 2012
Yet Defendants cite no precedential authority that is contrary to this long line of consistent rulings from the Federal Circuit. Defendants argue that the Supreme Court’s comments in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188 (U.S. 2011) (Roche II), undercut the Federal Circuit’s rulings. The Supreme Court in Roche II affirmed the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Roche I. 131 Case 2:09-cv-08441-DDP -VBK Document 737 Filed 01/16/12 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:15016 -10- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 S. Ct. at 2199.
Filed March 20, 2017
See id., at 187, 53 S.Ct. 554 (“The respective rights and obligations of employer and employee, touching an invention conceived by the latter, spring from the contract of employment”). Stanford v. Roche, 131 S. Ct. at 2195. Pitt understands that without a proper assignment, they have no ownership claim to the Plaintiffs’ invention.
Filed December 6, 2016
of the Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., 583 F.3d 832, 841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011). See Pandrol USA, LP v. Airboss Ry.
Filed October 3, 2016
of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 583 F.3d 832, 841 (Fed. Cir. 2009), aff’d, 563 U.S. 776 (2011); see also Blunt v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 767 F.3d 247, 280 (3d Cir. 2014), cert.
Filed July 29, 2014
v. Romac Indus., No. C10-1204RSL, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90653, at *8-9 (W.D. Wa. Aug. 15, 2011) (quoting Bd. of Trs. of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188, 2190 (2011)). Thus, “[w]hether an employer has standing to assert a Section 256 claim and have its employee named an inventor of a patent often turns on whether the employee has assigned his putative ownership rights in the patent to the employer.”
Filed September 18, 2012
Bd. of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., 131 S. Ct. 2188, 2190 (2011). Plaintiffs erroneously dismiss these key elements of the AIA as nothing more than a “smokescreen.”
Filed September 13, 2012
Surprisingly, the Government does not address the Supreme Court‟s most recent relevant decision: “Since 1790, the patent law has operated on the premise that rights in an invention belong to the inventor.” Board of Trustees of Stanford University v. Roche Molecular Sys. Inc., 131 S.Ct. 2188, 2192 (2011) (emphasis added). “[A]n inventor owns the product of [his or her] original thought.”
Filed September 5, 2012
The four individuals’ apparent ownership derived from their status as named co-inventors. See Bd. of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior Univ. v. Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 131 S. Ct. 2188, 2195 (2011) (“rights in an invention belong to the inventor”). Thus, as Motorola agrees, Schulz and Wyckoff being co-inventors was the purported consideration for the Assignment.
Filed March 15, 2019
The Courts have emphasized the requirement of a funding agreement. Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. 563 U.S. 776, 782 (2011): In 1980, Congress passed the Bayh–Dole Act to “promote the utilization of inventions 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.