home
about the group
appellate attorneys
briefs
docket reports
oral arguments
news on
 mayerbrown.com
contact
 

SUPREME COURT DOCKET REPORT

Mayer Brown's Supreme Court and Appellate Practice Group distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community. We also email the Docket Report to our subscribed members and if you don't already subscribe to the Docket Report and would like to, please click here.

October Term 2010 - November 1, 2010

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in one case of interest to the business community:


Bayh-Dole Act—Agreements to Assign Patent Rights

Each year, the U.S. government provides billions of dollars in federal funding for research. The Bayh-Dole Act, 35 U.S.C. § 200 et seq., creates a framework for allocating rights in inventions developed with federal funds. Under the Act, college and university, non-profit, and small-business federal contractors may “elect to retain title” to an invention conceived or reduced to practice in the performance of federally funded research. 35 U.S.C. § 202(a). If the contractor does not elect to retain title, the federal government may grant rights in the invention to the inventor. 35 U.S.C. § 202(d).

Today the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., No. 09-1159, to address the interaction between the Bayh-Dole Act’s allocation of patent rights and assignment agreements between inventors and third parties. The question presented is whether an inventor employed by a contractor that elects to retain title to an invention may defeat the contractor’s right to retain title by assigning rights in the invention to a third party. The Court’s decision will affect both small-business contractors that are covered by the Act and companies that might seek to enter into assignment agreements with inventors employed by a covered contractor of any type.

Roche, the respondent in the Supreme Court, marketed and sold HIV test kits. The three inventors of the technology worked at Stanford University, the petitioner in the Supreme Court, and signed contracts in which they “agree[d] to assign” rights in future inventions to Stanford. During the development of the technology, one of the inventors, Dr. Holodniy, spent time at Cetus, a local biotech company that Roche later purchased, where he signed another contract in which he agreed that he “will assign and do[es] hereby assign” rights in future inventions to Cetus. Stanford subsequently filed a patent application for the underlying technology, and then elected to retain title to it under the Bayh-Dole Act. The Federal Circuit held that the initial rights in the invention lay with Dr. Holodniy; that, because Dr. Holodniy assigned his rights to Cetus, rather than simply “agreeing” to assign them (as he did with Stanford), Roche now possesses Dr. Holodniy’s rights in the invention; and that Stanford had no rights it could “retain” under the statute. 

In its petition for certiorari, Stanford argued that, independent of any agreement between Dr. Holodniy and Cetus, the Bayh-Dole Act gave Stanford the right to the patent once it exercised its election right, and that the Federal Circuit’s decision runs contrary to the Act, which provides patent rights to the inventor only with the government’s approval. The Supreme Court requested the views of the Solicitor General, who took the position that the Federal Circuit’s decision is incorrect, that the question presented is important, and that the Court should grant certiorari.

Absent extensions, amicus briefs in support of the petitioner will be due on December 23, 2010, and amicus briefs in support of the respondents will be due on January 25, 2011. Any questions about this case should be directed to Dan Himmelfarb (+1 202 263 3035) in our Washington, DC office.


Today the Supreme Court also invited the Solicitor General to file briefs expressing the views of the United States in the following cases of interest to the business community:

PPL Montana, LLC v. State of Montana, No. 10-218: The questions presented concern (1) the test for determining whether a section of a river is navigable for title purposes and (2) preemption under the Federal Power Act of a State’s attempt to claim title to riverbeds.

John Crane Inc. v. Atwell, No. 10-272: The question presented is whether the Boiler Inspection Act impliedly preempts the field of locomotive equipment, thereby preempting respondent’s state-law claim.


Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and distributes a Docket Report-Decision Alert whenever the Court decides such a case. We hope you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at atauber@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3324).

Feel free to forward this message to anyone who you believe might be interested in the Docket Report.

Please visit us at appellate.net

Mayer Brown's Supreme Court & Appellate practice distributes a Docket Report whenever the Supreme Court grants certiorari in a case of interest to the business community and distributes a Docket Report-Decision Alert whenever the Court decides such a case. We hope you find the Docket Reports and Decision Alerts useful, and welcome feedback on them (which should be addressed to Andrew Tauber, their general editor, at atauber@mayerbrown.com or +1 202 263 3324).

Mayer Brown Supreme Court Docket Reports provide information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest to our clients and friends. They are not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed. 



 
 
© 2014. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved. --  Legal Notices | Attorney Advertising

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the “Mayer Brown Practices”). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. “Mayer Brown” and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.